PDA

View Full Version : Issue: Foreign Policy: Non-Interventionism and jihad




1000-points-of-fright
06-29-2007, 10:10 PM
I'm all for Ron Paul. I agree with the constitutional doctrine of non-interventionism. I agree that we are now experiencing the blowback for 50+ years of our middle east foreign policy. However, it's done and we can't change the past.

Even if we "bring the boys back home" and say we're sorry and play nice with the rest of the world, I don't think they will stop coming after us. What may have begun as legitimate political anger about our interference in "the holy lands" has mutated into the religious fervor and jihad that many people associate with Islamic extremists. Of course, that extremism was encouraged as a tool to get us out. If we had gotten out 30-40 years ago then maybe we wouldn't have this extremist jihad. But we didn't and now we have to deal the the present.

I agree that we should withdraw and be non-interventionist but I also believe that so much damage has been done that the worldwide jihad to spread Islam will continue, encouraged because they will have chased away the great Satan.

So I guess my question is how does Ron Paul propose to protect the nation while remaining non-interventionist? I don't like the idea of waiting to be hit and then retaliating.

Other than that, I'm clear on where he stands and I'm with him all the way.

buffalokid777
06-29-2007, 10:28 PM
If we spent 1/4 of what were spending in Iraq on Border security an immigration enforcement here....

We would be much better than if we had gone there....

Look how many of the 9/11 criminals were here on expired visas......

We don't even keep track of people who are here on visas....

1/4 of what we spent In Iraq could have sealed the borders, and got a small army to deport illegals and visa overstays....

We don't have to fight them over there if they can't get in here....

instead that criminal bush leaves the back door WIDE upon, refuses to build the fence, refuses to enforce immigration laws, refuses to uphold his oath to the constitution, unless the american people capitulate and go for shamnesty?

Just one more play from the ol Nazi playbook....You think these guys could come up with something a little more creative....Bush is such a politcial hack at this point...he's down to about zero credibility with the American people.

Gee
06-29-2007, 10:44 PM
There isn't any evidence they "will follow us home". The people claiming that are the same people saying Iraq had WMDs (and, incidentally, the same people saying Iran will still have a nuke, which is also not supported by any evidence). They are all politicians, and I don't see any reason to think they have any idea what they are talking about. They never cite any sources to back up their claims, or give us any reason to believe them at all. Most of the violence in Iraq is not directed at Americans, but is directed against other ethnic groups.

The CIA's Michael Scheuer (the man who was in charge of tracking bin Laden for years) has stated he does not believe the violence in Iraq will follow us back. He does believe there will be more acts of terrorism against the USA, and that Iraq has increased that danger greatly, but not that our leaving would embolden them. The Iraqis have much bigger problems to worry about than the USA.

There weren't even any al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there. The Iraqis and Saddam pretty much kept Iraq a terrorist-free country. The only reason al Qaeda is allowed in Iraq at the moment is to repel American soldiers. There is no reason to think they will be welcomed once American troops are gone.

Osama himself has said he will use Iraq to bleed us economically, just like he thinks he did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. He wants us there...

Also, non-interventionism doesn't mean you wait to be be physically attacked before defending yourself. It just means you only intervene when necessary for your own defense.

1000-points-of-fright
06-30-2007, 12:47 AM
I don't think the Iraqis will follow us here. In fact I don't think the majority of the people we're fighting right now will follow us back here. They'll probably be happy we're gone and go back to their own internal squabbles. But you have to admit that for some of the jihadis it's no longer "USA out of the middle east". It has become "convert or die". Granted, they are a minority but they can still blow stuff up.


Also, non-interventionism doesn't mean you wait to be be physically attacked before defending yourself. It just means you only intervene when necessary for your own defense.

"Be nice until it's time to not be nice." I know, I saw Roadhouse. ;) I would just like a few specifics on what would be considered necessary for our own defense. I don't want us to be like the cops and catch the killers after the crime has already been committed. How proactive will Ron Paul allow us to be regarding intelligence gathering and eliminating threats before they do something? That's all I'm asking.

buffalokid777
06-30-2007, 12:52 AM
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Tell that to the cut & run hacks.....

It'll hit a nerve for any of em with a consience

1000-points-of-fright
06-30-2007, 01:49 AM
How does this answer my question?

buffalokid777
06-30-2007, 03:32 AM
It means your being sold a fake bill of goods....

If you support cut and run...your unpatriotic.....same tactic the nazis liked to keep people on the war by questioning patriotism....

We cut and ran from vietnam....

Fast forward 30+ years...

We invest in Vietnam....

We have trade with vietnam....

Let's get the heck out of Iraq.....

And we can trade with them once they settle their internal conflicts....

Vietnam proves this can work...

We need to mind our own business...

Let other countries deal with their own problems....

Let's concentrate on our own problems...Lord knows we have more than enough to deal with....

We need to stop worrying about other countries and start worrying about our own country instead...we are NOT nation builders....we are NOT an empire....If someone wants to say we are...they are traitors of the constiturion...

We need to mind our OWN business....

That's my point....

Man from La Mancha
06-30-2007, 03:40 AM
Does thousands of nuclear missiles and nuclear subs mean anything to countries that don't have them even Israel could not match what we have.





I'm all for Ron Paul. I agree with the constitutional doctrine of non-interventionism. I agree that we are now experiencing the blowback for 50+ years of our middle east foreign policy. However, it's done and we can't change the past.

Even if we "bring the boys back home" and say we're sorry and play nice with the rest of the world, I don't think they will stop coming after us. What may have begun as legitimate political anger about our interference in "the holy lands" has mutated into the religious fervor and jihad that many people associate with Islamic extremists. Of course, that extremism was encouraged as a tool to get us out. If we had gotten out 30-40 years ago then maybe we wouldn't have this extremist jihad. But we didn't and now we have to deal the the present.

I agree that we should withdraw and be non-interventionist but I also believe that so much damage has been done that the worldwide jihad to spread Islam will continue, encouraged because they will have chased away the great Satan.

So I guess my question is how does Ron Paul propose to protect the nation while remaining non-interventionist? I don't like the idea of waiting to be hit and then retaliating.

Other than that, I'm clear on where he stands and I'm with him all the way.

1000-points-of-fright
06-30-2007, 03:53 AM
Buffalokid, relax. I'm not buying what they're selling. I want Ron Paul to win remember? I'm on your side.

But I asked a legitimate question because I want to know where Ron Paul stands on this issue. If, as Gee said, non-interventionism doesn't mean you wait to be be physically attacked before defending yourself, then under what circumstances is it acceptable to defend yourself before being physically attacked?

I can only guess from your last post that your answer is "never". If that's true, you could have just said that instead of obfuscating with a bunch of tangentially related rhetoric. Jeez.

buffalokid777
06-30-2007, 04:33 AM
I can only guess from your last post that your answer is "never"

You are correct...

"All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler.
I recall that's about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, I don't believe there is such a thing,
and frankly I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

There's alot of wisdom in that quote.....

1000-points-of-fright
06-30-2007, 02:52 PM
Ok. So you think non-intervention means we have to be attacked first before we can respond. That's settled. But you're not running for president. Does anyone know if Ron Paul feels the same way? His writings that I have found so far only speak of non-intervention as a sort of vague over-riding philosophy. And generally I agree. But I need something a little more defined.

When does he think we should act? Upon discovery of planned aggression? When preparations are made to implement that plan? When everything is in place and all that's left is for the attack to be in motion? Or only after the attack?

Let's use WWII as a specific case. When would he have fought Hitler? After he conquered Europe and set his sights on the US? Or waited until the German fleet and airforce were on their way? Or only after the Nazis first physical act of violence against US sovereignty?

Anyone see what I'm getting at?

Tsoman
06-30-2007, 03:09 PM
I feel like terrorism is one of the least important issues facing this country.

We don't live in a 100% safe world, boo hoo.

Personally, I'm more concerned that the air-bag light has been flashing on my dashboard.

angelatc
06-30-2007, 03:38 PM
I know he's talked about the COld War as an example.

tsoldrin
06-30-2007, 05:26 PM
I reject the whole notion of a worldwide muslim extremist jihad and I find it preposterous to even contemplate. Without our help, they would not even be able to muslimify their own muslim countries because for the most part muslims want to modernize as much as anyone else. Actual extremists are FEW ... VERY FEW. The two things giving them power is - direct action against folks in those countries (by us!) ... namely when a loved one is kidnapped, killed, tortured or otherwise mistreated by our ridiculous war on terror it obviously is going to get people in a mood for revenge.... and the other and far stronger power we are giving to the extremists is fear... we make it so they can tell anyone who will listen that the U.S. will institute an anti-muslim crusade and erradicate all of them or help Israel do such a thing... normally the jokers spouting such stuff would be considered madmen, but thanks to our actions, those nut cases are sounding reasonable and gaining followers.

By removing the insult, the injury and the threat, we take away the power of extremists to gather followers. Let's face it, without followers, those guys are nothing, because they don't ever actually perform suicide attacks themselves... if they did, they would be a self-fixing problem.