PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: How does Ron's foreign policy protect the US from terrorism?




sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 02:26 PM
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I have a question about his foreign policy. I think one of the main reasons we are war at least to a lot of america is to protect us from terrorism. If the terrorism does exist, then how would Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy protect us from terrorism? What if terrorists strike us first after we've pulled out of their lands? This could have a huge cost to us with lives being hurt.

Also is there evidence of a real terrorist threat?

TheViper
01-25-2012, 02:30 PM
We create the terrorism against us. Period.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XKfuS6gfxPY

CaptUSA
01-25-2012, 02:32 PM
Terrorism is real. The threat is not as big as imagined or portrayed. You are more likely to be killed by your second lightning strike than by a terrorist. Does anyone advocate giving up all their liberties, wealth, and the lives of their children to stop lightning?

That being said, there are things we can do to minimize terrorism. The first is to be cautious about the actions that incite terrorism. You know, like pissing all over their lands, propping up their dictators, and bombing civilians.


Perhaps that is too long range? For a short term solution, you allow private companies to handle security of airports. You pull back your troops and have them stationed at home.

bluesc
01-25-2012, 02:34 PM
The real question is: What is war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Iran doing to protect us from terrorism?

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, an unconditional ally of the US.

The terrorists' real target is Israel. As long as the US unconditionally supports Israel and fights her wars for her, the US will be at huge risk. If Israel had to defend itself, the leaders would be very quick to negotiate with their neighbors for a peaceful solution.

Another reason for the terrorist hate towards the US is the US policy of protecting dictators like Sadam, Mubarak and Gaddafi. Look what happened to them.

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 02:41 PM
Ron Paul would prevent terrorism by not provoking it. And before someone chimes in that Im justifying what the teorrists have done, I am not. Example. You go to a busy night club on a friday night by yourself and order a drink. You pay for the drink and put your wallet on the bar. You leave your wallet on the bar and walk over to the restroom. When you return your wallet is gone. SOmeone has stolen your wallet. That you left it un attended does not justify someone stealing it but it certainly lays the blame squarely on your own damn fault for being an ass clown and leaving your wallet unattended on the bar. Its still wrong to steal, but its your fault and your fault only for losing your wallet.

So when we go to other countries with other culture and set up bases and provoke everyone, then enforce sanctions and rules on them because we dont like their culture or religion b ecause they arent even mentally or biologically ready to come out of the stone age yet we cant be surprised when they try to lash out any way they can. Who the hell do we think we are?! I used to justify all our actions over there and all the killing and mutilation that happens in the name of spreading democracy so the can become just as f$*#ed up as we are but I dont see it that way anymore. We did provoke them and thats the truth. Our foreign policy caused this problem This is not the way the founding fathers set up america to be. Our foreign policy is HIGHLY against the constitution. What we have done over there is HIGHLY UN american and we suffer the consequences now. America has forgotten we are all about Liberty and Freedom yet we go to other countries and impose OUR will on them. False.

RonPaulMyPresident
01-25-2012, 02:45 PM
The best way to stop terrorism is to have a strong defense and a strong national security. How the hell did a bunch of men board a plane with knives and box cutters is beyond belief.

CaptUSA
01-25-2012, 02:53 PM
the US will be at huge risk.

Really HUGE risk?

Around 3000 people died in the 911 attacks. While that's bad, let's put it in context. Around that same number die each year in house fires. Around that same number of non-smokers die from lung cancer each year. Around that same number die from car accidents just in Great Brittain each year.

And those are EVERY year! The death rate from terrorism is like a 1/4 of what it is from lightning strikes and you are twice as likely to be killed by a shark than by a terrorist. Look, I don't want to minimize the horror we feel, but to call it a "huge" threat is playing right into the hands of those that would like to capitalize on the fears.

TheViper
01-25-2012, 02:53 PM
The best way to stop terrorism is to have a strong defense and a strong national security. How the hell did a bunch of men board a plane with knives and box cutters is beyond belief.
Because the government didn't leave security up to the airliners and airports themselves. That's how.

TexAg09
01-25-2012, 02:53 PM
It's a weird way of thinking about it, but this is just my personal views. 9/11 was a tragedy and yes, that was a terrorist attack. America is using that to justify all of this war and "fighting against terrorism". Unfortunately, we're just killing each other and not really progressing towards any goals of a better tomorrow. Terrorism is not a person, but rather a concept. As long as people can think, there will be terrorism. Has anyone died in the U.S. from a terrorist attack since 9/11? More people die from disease and famine than terrorism. I would gladly take the chances of a few dying from terrorism than letting millions absolutely die from living in poverty. We could have positively changed this world with the amount of money we spend on war, all in the name of "fighting terrorism".

I'm not scared of terrorism. I'm scared of losing my freedom and the role of America being a leader to look up to. (yes, we probably lost that already, but I'm trying to be positive)

CaptUSA
01-25-2012, 02:56 PM
Ron Paul would prevent terrorism by not provoking it. And before someone chimes in that Im justifying what the teorrists have done, I am not. Example. You go to a busy night club on a friday night by yourself and order a drink. You pay for the drink and put your wallet on the bar. You leave your wallet on the bar and walk over to the restroom. When you return your wallet is gone. SOmeone has stolen your wallet. That you left it un attended does not justify someone stealing it but it certainly lays the blame squarely on your own damn fault for being an ass clown and leaving your wallet unattended on the bar. Its still wrong to steal, but its your fault and your fault only for losing your wallet.Good analogy. I use this one: It's like you letting your dog (politicians) keep digging up your neighbor's rose bushes. He tells you to stop, but you blow him off. Then he calls the cops and they arrest HIM for bugging you. Then he gets a gun and kills you. Who is at fault? Obviously, him. But you could have prevented it by neutering your dog.

evadmurd
01-25-2012, 02:57 PM
Nothing protects us from terrorism. Thus the word root word: 'terror'.

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 02:59 PM
It's a weird way of thinking about it, but this is just my personal views. 9/11 was a tragedy and yes, that was a terrorist attack. America is using that to justify all of this war and "fighting against terrorism". Unfortunately, we're just killing each other and not really progressing towards any goals of a better tomorrow. Terrorism is not a person, but rather a concept. As long as people can think, there will be terrorism. Has anyone died in the U.S. from a terrorist attack since 9/11? More people die from disease and famine than terrorism. I would gladly take the chances of a few dying from terrorism than letting millions absolutely die from living in poverty. We could have positively changed this world with the amount of money we spend on war, all in the name of "fighting terrorism".

I'm not scared of terrorism. I'm scared of losing my freedom and the role of America being a leader to look up to. (yes, we probably lost that already, but I'm trying to be positive)

as ive said before. The attack on 911 was a total succes and the towers falling was the least of the damage they did. The real damage is all the liberty they caused the government to take away from us and all the dead and injuries from the war, all the debt trillions and trillions of debt that we had to borrow from china. Yes the guys with the box cutters did all this because we had people ini office that used the opportunity as an excuse to do what they wanted to all along. The real enemy is among us and is much much more dangerous than the pissed off guys with the box cutters and the funny hats.

RonRules
01-25-2012, 03:00 PM
"How does Ron's foreign policy protect the US from terrorism?"

Maybe by being nice to people, doing trade with them, student exchanges and puppy videos.

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 03:00 PM
Good analogy. I use this one: It's like you letting your dog (politicians) keep digging up your neighbor's rose bushes. He tells you to stop, but you blow him off. Then he calls the cops and they arrest HIM for bugging you. Then he gets a gun and kills you. Who is at fault? Obviously, him. But you could have prevented it by neutering your dog. yes exactly. but i disagree it is the guy with dogs fault. However it does not justify killing the guy with the dog. That is still murder and still wrong but it could have been prevented.

RonPaulMyPresident
01-25-2012, 03:03 PM
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I have a question about his foreign policy. I think one of the main reasons we are war at least to a lot of america is to protect us from terrorism. If the terrorism does exist, then how would Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy protect us from terrorism? What if terrorists strike us first after we've pulled out of their lands? This could have a huge cost to us with lives being hurt.

Also is there evidence of a real terrorist threat?

There is no reason for us to be in Afghanistan, the poorest most backwards nation on earth with no gas or oil.

Osama Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is weaker than ever, and we are just making the local Afghans angry by being there. Its hard to believe that we are spending trillions of dollars on a dusty stone age country like Afghanistan. They don't want us there to build their nation so just leave them. None of the 9/11 terrorists were Afghans. Let Afghans live in the 7th century, they prefer it over us building their nation.

CaptUSA
01-25-2012, 03:04 PM
yes exactly. but i disagree it is the guy with dogs fault. However it does not justify killing the guy with the dog. That is still murder and still wrong but it could have been prevented.Yeah, perhaps I wasn't clear. The neighbor is at fault for killing you. But you could have prevented it.

soulcyon
01-25-2012, 03:08 PM
We create the terrorism against us. Period.

Holy crap, I've never seen that video even though its pretty old. Thanks for the link, I'm bout to convert a couple hundred Facebook friends :D

thoughtomator
01-25-2012, 03:12 PM
We'd actually get control of our border back from the drug cartels

don't need to fire too many shots to do it, either - ending drug war cuts their money supply and the raison d'etre of their business

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 03:13 PM
do you all have any sources to backup your claims? I'm trying to do research on this subject so that I can be well-informed of whatever the truth is.

bluesc
01-25-2012, 03:17 PM
do you all have any sources to backup your claims?

Do you see "women in the workplace" listed here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

And some videos from the former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit and advisor to three US Presidents on the Middle East and Terrorism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU

And here he is endorsing Ron Paul's foreign policy:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muDyAurk0hM

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 03:28 PM
And there you have it. If you dont believe it from the CIA director then you simply dont want to believe it.

Liberty74
01-25-2012, 03:36 PM
Our current foreign policy supported by the establishment Republicans (including Beck, Levin, Hannity, Rush, etc) create 90% of the terrorism against us by being over there on "other people's land." This in turn creates hatred towards us, hence the terror.

How many people here want Russia, Iran, or China building military bases in your back yard to launch wars within the U.S.? Nuff said.

If we are attacked or about to get attacked, Ron Paul would go to war with Congressional approval. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Side note: Today, you are more likely to be killed by a swarm of bees or get struck by lightening than to be killed by a terrorist. So why do we have to give up our freedoms and liberties for a police state? Just saying...

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 03:47 PM
So what do we say when people claum that the terrorists attack us because they hate our freedoms

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 03:49 PM
tell them to watch that video below from the CIA guy.

bluesc
01-25-2012, 03:49 PM
So what do we say when people claum that the terrorists attack us because they hate our

...Freedoms?

Search for Michael Scheuer videos, like the one I provided above, explain his credentials, and show them to people. If they won't listen to an expert with extensive experience, they won't listen to anyone.

Lishy
01-25-2012, 03:51 PM
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I have a question about his foreign policy. I think one of the main reasons we are war at least to a lot of america is to protect us from terrorism. If the terrorism does exist, then how would Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy protect us from terrorism? What if terrorists strike us first after we've pulled out of their lands? This could have a huge cost to us with lives being hurt.

Also is there evidence of a real terrorist threat?

We created the terrorism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

TheViper
01-25-2012, 03:53 PM
So what do we say when people claum that the terrorists attack us because they hate our
Tell to stop being so naive and do some research.

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 03:55 PM
What about the belief that we're preventing terrorism by the wars?

Newt made a point about this during one of the debated

bluesc
01-25-2012, 03:58 PM
What about the belief that we're preventing terrorism by the wars?

Did you watch the Michael Scheuer videos?

To put it simply: We have a drone over Pakistan, we target a suspected terrorist, he is surrounded by ten school children. We take the shot anyway because he is a high value target. We kill him. We also kill the ten innocent children. We just eliminated one bad guy and created ten families full of hate towards the US. Was it a net positive? We just motivated people in ten families to attack the US in the future.

You can't eliminate terrorists by continuing to do the things that motivated them in the first place.

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 04:12 PM
Did you watch the Michael Scheuer videos?

To put it simply: We have a drone over Pakistan, we target a suspected terrorist, he is surrounded by ten school children. We take the shot anyway because he is a high value target. We kill him. We also kill the ten innocent children. We just eliminated one bad guy and created ten families full of hate towards the US. Was it a net positive? We just motivated people in ten families to attack the US in the future.

You can't eliminate terrorists by continuing to do the things that motivated them in the first place.

We need to stop the aggression now.

Demigod
01-25-2012, 04:24 PM
terrorism is not a weapon and terrorists are not an army or nation.It is just a tactic for fighting bigger stronger enemies by striking fear into their population and hope to get them to a point where for them it would be better to pull back then to leave in fear or as in the case of USA make them paranoid that they stretch so much with men and resources that in the end they fail. .

If you did not occupy the middle east but Mexico and Southern America instead today Mexicans would be doing suicide attacks in the USA.

Just see who are the only nations that get attacked: USA,UK,Russia all of them in some kind of war or just plain occupying their land.

There are 2 ways out of this:

The German way : for every USA citizen or soldier dead you kill 10 000 Arabs (randomly),and get so much blood on your hands acid wont wash it.
The reasonable way : The USA goes home and in a few decades maybe you will get your good reputation back

dannno
01-25-2012, 04:34 PM
do you all have any sources to backup your claims? I'm trying to do research on this subject so that I can be well-informed of whatever the truth is.

Look into blowback. The real CIA definition of blowback is not simply retribution for our bombing campaigns, wars and overseas bases. Blowback is retribution for our secret bombing campaigns, secret funding and providing countries with weapons of mass destruction, secretly overthrowing democratically elected leaders, etc... that essentially means that the reasons for the terrorism are not reported in the news, so the media gets to make up reasons and the public is severely uneducated on the reasons why. This is why Ron Paul has a hard time getting traction because he can't give a 60 year foreign policy lesson in a two minute debate answer or even a 5 or 10 minute interview.

So in order to fully research the subject, you have to look into what our government has been doing, mostly in the Middle East and South America, for the last 60 years.

Our CIA helps to smuggle massive amounts of cocaine and heroin into our country in order to fund secret intelligence operations that are not funded with taxpayer dollars. That's going to piss some people off.

Also look into "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Pretty much all the actions our government takes are in the name of big multi-national corporations.

dannno
01-25-2012, 04:41 PM
What about the belief that we're preventing terrorism by the wars?

Newt made a point about this during one of the debated

One of the main reasons we are in Afghanistan is to protect the poppy fields so the CIA can continue to get funding through heroin sales. The Taliban was destroying all of the poppy crops in the late 90s and since we have been there our military has been protecting the poppy fields and the brother of the puppet President of Afghanistan who we installed was actually dealing the heroin. It takes very little paying attention to alternative media to see that mainstream media is pretty much 100% propaganda.

The other main reason we are in Afghanistan was for an oil pipeline.

The reason we occupy countries are purely economic, and not for our country so much as the multi-national corporations, because we actually pay for the military action through taxes.

Newt is a puppet whose words on foreign policy are complete BS based completely on propaganda and have nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Lishy
01-25-2012, 04:50 PM
sdsubball23, Newt has a $40BILLION dollar war contract. Look it up.

Same with Romney.

Think they care about other people? Their words on stage try to make us feel patriotic and united, but their backgrounds really tell a different story.

MadOdorMachine
01-25-2012, 04:54 PM
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I have a question about his foreign policy. I think one of the main reasons we are war at least to a lot of america is to protect us from terrorism. If the terrorism does exist, then how would Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy protect us from terrorism? What if terrorists strike us first after we've pulled out of their lands? This could have a huge cost to us with lives being hurt.

Also is there evidence of a real terrorist threat?
Ron Paul would protect our borders. Right now the are completely open. He has repeatedly said he would place troops there.

One of the reasons 9/11 happened is because no one listened to the threat or understood blowback. Ron Paul seems to have a better grasp at this than others. You also have to look at the goal of terrorism. It's hard for them to attack us over here because we're so far away, but it's easy for them to attack us in the Middle East and it's also a huge financial burden. In short, the terrorists are winning because they're making us go broke and killing a lot of our military. It also makes no sense for us to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight alQaida and then support them in Lybia.

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 06:19 PM
How do we know all of this true?

Sorry I havent seen the videos yet I'm at work but I'll check them out later

CaptUSA
01-25-2012, 06:50 PM
So what do we say when people claum that the terrorists attack us because they hate our freedomsHa! I love this question. This is the answer...

So apparently if we give up all of our freedoms they'll stop hating us?! That certainly seems to be the establishment's plan!

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 07:03 PM
Ha! I love this question. This is the answer...

So apparently if we give up all of our freedoms they'll stop hating us?! That certainly seems to be the establishment's plan!
9
I know there are different laws proposed that seem to take away freedoms but what and whos freedoms have really been taken?

mosquitobite
01-25-2012, 07:08 PM
So what do we say when people claum that the terrorists attack us because they hate our freedoms
LOL!

I reply, "if they hate us for our freedoms...well then...we'll just be good Americans and let our government strip us of them!"

mosquitobite
01-25-2012, 07:09 PM
9
I know there are different laws proposed that seem to take away freedoms but what and whos freedoms have really been taken?

Who gets to define terrorism/terrorist?

CaptUSA
01-25-2012, 07:11 PM
9
I know there are different laws proposed that seem to take away freedoms but what and whos freedoms have really been taken?

Have you been to an airport?
What are you not allowed to put into your own body?
Is your government allowed to execute you without a trial?
Can they take your land to give to another entity without your permission?
Can your government take you away and lock you up indefinitely without a trial?
Does the government devalue the fruits of your labor? Does it lay claim to them?

Hard to believe anyone who asks these questions would really think they are free.

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 07:41 PM
Have you been to an airport?
What are you not allowed to put into your own body?
Is your government allowed to execute you without a trial?
Can they take your land to give to another entity without your permission?
Can your government take you away and lock you up indefinitely without a trial?
Does the government devalue the fruits of your labor? Does it lay claim to them?

Hard to believe anyone who asks these questions would really think they are free.


I haven't flown since the late 80s

Who and how many people have been a victim of this out of the population of the US?

Just to let you all know I'm trying get some really good info about the foreign policy so I may ask a lot of challenging questions as if I'm part of the opposition. I hope this doesnt rile u all up

mosquitobite
01-25-2012, 08:36 PM
I know there are different laws proposed that seem to take away freedoms but what and whos freedoms have really been taken?

sdsubball23, who gets to define terrorist/terrorism?

sdsubball23
01-25-2012, 10:28 PM
sdsubball23, who gets to define terrorist/terrorism?

I figure the government and whatever they have defined it as already.

What do you think?

Gary4Liberty
01-25-2012, 10:31 PM
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. So I guess it depends what your agenda is. Havent you seen all the people in airports getting groped and touched, unlawfully searched and detained.? It just happend to Rand Paul for crying out loud. If it happens to him, It most certainly can happen to you. It is happening all the time in the news.

http://www.alligator.org/opinion/editorials/article_ccc75c4c-4644-11e1-a1dd-0019bb2963f4.html

liveandletlive
01-25-2012, 10:44 PM
we stop funding terrorism and aiding groups like Fatah and others around the world, thus keeping these problems as isolated as possible.

Tod
01-25-2012, 11:00 PM
Someone w/ drawing skills:

Cartoon of a scared American looking under the bed at a shadow of a suicide terrorist before climbing in for the night....

Caption: The government WANTS you to think the boogeyman is under your bed.

Or something along those lines...

jacksonunit
01-26-2012, 06:29 AM
In three words, "Stop foreign aid." I'm almost certain that if the rest of the world had to fight their own wars, pay for their own groceries, dig themselves out of their own earthquakes, etc.... for a few years, anti-American sentiment would slow to a trickle. The nice part about this plan is that IT WILL HAPPEN, one way or another.

How NOT to fight terrorism: When a rogue element from one country (Saudi Arabia) attacks you, turn around and attack some other country (Iraq) because you think that a rogue element in that country MIGHT be involved. How would you feel if China bombed DC because they felt some suddenly violent Falun Gong radicals were trained in America by Kundalini Yoga fundamentalist radicals.

*I know, the Falungongites didn't fly airplanes into Chinese skyscrapers, but the rest of the analogy is golden. :)

sdsubball23
01-26-2012, 12:46 PM
In three words, "Stop foreign aid." I'm almost certain that if the rest of the world had to fight their own wars, pay for their own groceries, dig themselves out of their own earthquakes, etc.... for a few years, anti-American sentiment would slow to a trickle. The nice part about this plan is that IT WILL HAPPEN, one way or another.

How NOT to fight terrorism: When a rogue element from one country (Saudi Arabia) attacks you, turn around and attack some other country (Iraq) because you think that a rogue element in that country MIGHT be involved. How would you feel if China bombed DC because they felt some suddenly violent Falun Gong radicals were trained in America by Kundalini Yoga fundamentalist radicals.

*I know, the Falungongites didn't fly airplanes into Chinese skyscrapers, but the rest of the analogy is golden. :)

but haven't there been reports of al qaeda involved in these other countries? I figure that would be a reason for invasion of other countries, to stop the terrorists whereever they are located from attacking again

sdsubball23
01-26-2012, 01:15 PM
Do you see "women in the workplace" listed here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

And some videos from the former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit and advisor to three US Presidents on the Middle East and Terrorism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU

And here he is endorsing Ron Paul's foreign policy:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muDyAurk0hM

Thanks for the videos, interesting material.

I found this blog regarding Scheuer's views. How would you respond to the response by Robert Spencer and some of the comments?

hxxp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/disgusting-anti-semite-michael-scheuer-says-israel-is-such-an-enormous-detriment-to-the-united-states-video/

GunnyFreedom
01-26-2012, 01:21 PM
On 9/11 we should have had an entire armed air wing on alert for CONUS East. Instead we had four aircraft on alert, only one of which was armed. We were already spread too thin then. Also, the real terrorism danger is from sleeper cells in the US. When those activate I'd rather have the Army at Ft Benning Georgia than Barton Barracks Germany where the best they can do is watch it on CNN. Finally, Paul's RKBA policy would have allowed commercial pilots to carry pistols, which may have stopped 9/11 from ever happening in the first place.

Not to mention that Paul warned us 2 years in advance that it was coming, and proposed policy adjustments to prevent it.

bluesc
01-26-2012, 01:23 PM
Thanks for the videos, interesting material.

I found this blog regarding Scheuer's views. How would you respond to the response by Robert Spencer and some of the comments?

hxxp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/disgusting-anti-semite-michael-scheuer-says-israel-is-such-an-enormous-detriment-to-the-united-states-video/


“Well I think that’s appallingly a terrible thing for Mr. Scheuer to have said. Israel is the only real democracy… It’s the only stable government. It’s the only one that protects human rights. And, Mr Scheuer wants us to throw it under the bus for a bunch of people who are going to institute a system of Islamic law that institutionalizes discrimination against non-Muslims and women, extinguishes the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and is inveterately hostile to a genocidal degree. I think that’s appalling.”

Israel protects human rights? LOL. Remind me how the Israeli government treats Muslims? Besides, he is making a humanitarian argument that is completely unrelated to US national security. Scheuer goes on these shows to explain how any given story or event is going to affect the national security of the US. He is completely correct when he says that whatever happens to Israel, it makes absolutely no difference to US national security. Robert Spencer can make all of the humanitarian arguments he likes, it still doesn't change the facts that Scheuer lays out.

sdsubball23
01-26-2012, 01:25 PM
Israel protects human rights? LOL. Remind me how the Israeli government treats Muslims? Besides, he is making a humanitarian argument that is completely unrelated to US national security. Scheuer goes on these shows to explain how any given story or event is going to affect the national security of the US. He is completely correct when he says that whatever happens to Israel, it makes absolutely no difference to US national security. Robert Spencer can make all of the humanitarian arguments he likes, it still doesn't change the facts that Scheuer lays out.

What about the anti-semite accusations?

bluesc
01-26-2012, 01:30 PM
What about the anti-semite accusations?

I didn't realize you wanted me to respond to such ridiculous arguments.

Michael Scheuer is stating that the security of Israel means nothing in relation to US national security. That is a fact. Of course, the common argument against those that don't idealize Israel is "You're an anti-semite!!!111!", which is, quite frankly, is absolutely ridiculous.

The ridiculous "anti-semite" claim is one of the main reasons you can't have a rational discussion on US Middle East policy anymore.

ronpaulhemp
01-28-2012, 02:24 PM
Ron Paul's policies would remove the main cause of hatred/terrorism against us by removing troops from overseas lands. Plain and simple.

FreeTraveler
01-28-2012, 02:28 PM
The woodsman's explanation of foreign policy.

Go find the biggest hornet's nest you can find. Watch it closely.

This is Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Now let's try our existing foreign policy.

Find a very sturdy stick. Walk up close to the hornet's nest. Give it three big whacks with the stick. If you get stung, whack it again.

Now tell me that intervention is the best foreign policy.

mosquitobite
01-28-2012, 02:34 PM
I know there are different laws proposed that seem to take away freedoms but what and whos freedoms have really been taken?


who gets to define terrorist/terrorism?


I figure the government and whatever they have defined it as already.

What do you think?

My question was because you asked what freedoms and who's freedoms have been taken. The terrorists freedoms have been taken. Who are the terrorists? Whomever the government defines as terrorists.

Now, from there you have to realize how many tentacles the CIA has and how they achieve their goals. We're comfortable with our government secretly working to overthrow other governments and we know they do it. But at the same time, we don't consider how they could use the same tactics to change public opinion on domestic topics?

Let's imagine an OWS protest outside the White House. Bunch of stinky hippies smoking pot wanting all our hard earned money, right? Let's now pretend one of them throws a grenade onto the WH lawn. (Unbeknownst to us of course is the fact that the one who threw the grenade is a CIA operative) How would this get painted in the media? Would the right wingers bash the OWS protesters as terrorists? Of course they would! BAM. Dissent squashed.

bolil
01-28-2012, 04:16 PM
I will answer you question with another question: How did the Roman Empire's foreign policy contribute to its collapse? (Hint it has to do with holding a really, really, really, long line and pissin off the locals as you hold it)