PDA

View Full Version : Is Ron Paul wrong about Jihadists and Foreign Policy?




synapz
07-02-2007, 01:27 PM
This article certainly brings his stance into question:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

Even after reading that, though, I am still convinced he is correct. I think that at the very least, there would be fewer terrorists with a foreign policy of freedom.

That said, even if Ron Paul is wrong, an immoral foreign policy of preemptive war is certainly not the answer. Even if he is wrong, I would rather have his foreign policy over any other I can think of.

It's not just about why they are attacking us. It is also about us doing what is right.

LibertyEagle
07-02-2007, 01:32 PM
There are some bad ones. Sure there are. And if they are an imminent threat to us, we should go after them. But, we also should not have a foreign policy that is plain wrong and also creates one heck of a lot of additional people who want to do us harm. That's what we are doing now.

joshdvm
07-02-2007, 01:39 PM
None of this disproves any of the conclusions of those on RP's reading list (Scheuer, Pape, or Johnson) with regard to why OBL's message resonates so powerfully with 100's of millions in the so-called Muslim world and motivates a small percentage of those to carry out extreme acts of violence.

mikelovesgod
07-02-2007, 01:58 PM
Here is my only fear, namely, the damage has already been done. Historian Hillaire Belloc called Islam the "Sleeping Giant ready to be awoken". I think we awoke the beast and while Dr. Paul's stance is probably best in normal times this is a tough call.

If he's wrong Americans will die, if he's right foreigners will live and our soldiers will live. There won't be senseless violence which creates these tensions and hatred. As of right now I'm up in the air. I think Dr. Paul is right insofar as we should not be police to the world, we should not be in a country where the "collateral damage" greatly outweighs troop containment, and we certainly should not be called on by the UN to do their dirty work.

If we are attacked again I expect Dr. Paul to be smarter and not so far-reaching with war. No matter what his approach fiscally is better for the country. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because the other policies have been an embarassment to this nation's history.

MGS
07-02-2007, 01:58 PM
No.

FreedomLover
07-02-2007, 01:58 PM
and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Islam is an anachronism.

Much like the Christianity of the Dark and Middle Ages, Islam needs a renaissance, an enlightenment of its own in order to harmonize it with rational and modern social values.

Their society and culture is backwards, therefore, their religion reflects that.

Im glad Mr. Butt wised up to that, but hes saying what everyone else outside of the neocons and their brainwashed supporters already know. Theyre not going to stop attacking until they either get smart or we stop giving them reasons and opportunities to blow themselves up. I would prefer both.

Ron is adding another dimension to solving this problem, talking to them, trading with them, and not bombing their countries. Bush may find it shocking that you can talk to middle eastern politicians without discussing oil fields or terrorism, but it´s possible. Rons not gonna solve this hundreds of years old problem over night, but at the very least hes not going to exacerbate it. And he'll be coming from an honest and uncorrupted angle, which lessens the complexities and possible blowback, considering how entangled the bush admin and their businesses are with the saudi arabians, musharref, the bin ladens, the taliban (before it was dissolved), etc etc.

Prosperity has kept America free so far, but information is the currency of democracy. The Mideast would be a lot better off with either of these.

glts
07-02-2007, 02:01 PM
There is a great article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alex_wal_070701_ron_paul_3a_making_ame.htm

From the article:

"...the fact that we are not protecting our borders exposes the entire exercise as nothing more than a criminal sham. It negates any claims that we are protecting our national security interests in fighting them abroad. Pulling our troops back and stationing them along the border makes far more sense than the policy we are pursuing now."

beermotor
07-02-2007, 02:13 PM
I really liked Clash of Civilizations, the very last pages had some great points for keeping peace in the world. Check out pages 316-320.

Go browse it at your local store.

Trevorjustco
07-02-2007, 02:16 PM
The biggest question that I have, following this article, is how does a nation fight against a theology?

The methods, as spearheaded by people like Bush, CFR, and other neo-conservatives is that by subordinating the Islamist states to our own interests, and guiding their public education and government, that we can sway their ideology. Additionally, it seems to be their objective to create a clear rift between the radical Muslims and the moderate ones such that they can be more easily targeted with conventional military actions.

Of course, this is tantamount to ethnic cleansing and morally repugnant should the public view things this way.
Additionally, the people of the Islamic nations will easily see through this charade, and will not accept any "western" modes of thought.

Gee
07-02-2007, 02:19 PM
That article is complete bullshit, and to me reads more like propaganda than anything else. Hassan Butt just wants to get into the limelight, like many people do, and will slant his story as is necessary in order to do so. Its not so different from what politicians do, in that way.

Yes, certain merry bands of suicide bombers might be motivated strictly by what they think their religion tells them... But the fact remains that there are more Muslims per capita in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Russia, and Singapore, to name the more industrialized countries. Many of those countries have had minor attacks over the decades, but all for specific reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

I mean, what does a hardcore Muslim think of Denmark, where prostitution is legal?

zMtLlC
07-02-2007, 02:20 PM
I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.


This doesn't discredit what Dr. Paul is saying. Both Mr. Sheuer and Dr. Paul don't deny that the Islam doesn't play a part. No one can say for sure what motivates every single member of these organizations to do these things, probably because there are many reasons. However, when one takes into account the fact that this organization sprang up largely to defend against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, one can hardly deny Mr. Sheuer's reasoning in that they are waging a defensive jihad against those who they believe are invading them. Bin Laden's final goal may possibly be to establish a world-wide Islamic state (I'm sure he wouldn't object to its establishment), but his recruiting comes primarily from our foreign policy in the Middle East.

It's not really a black and white issue, so we can't really say they hate us because of "blank." There are many reasons why the people probably join these groups, but logically I can only see our oppressive foreign policy as the main one.

Bryan in Iowa
07-02-2007, 02:23 PM
Interesting. Hassan Butt, the author of this piece admits to being part of the British Jihadi Network as late as February 2006. It strikes me as strange he would be permitted to walk the streets of London, let alone publish articles...unless they were pro-state propaganda. Not sure I would take his word for anything of substance when it comes to the reasons behind the Jihadist movement. Granted, there are elements within the Muslim community committed to overthrowing the West, but is it the true endgame for OBL? I doubt it. Money rules the world, not religion.

mconder
07-02-2007, 02:26 PM
I believe much of the leadership in the Islamic world think this way, but they would not have such devoted followers if it wasn't for American foreign policy. Most people are the same, wether they are Americans or Arabs...they just want to live their life, get married, have kids, and enjoy life without dramatic upset. We give middle east leaders all they need to whip people up in a frenzy. Anywhere you find a suffering people, you will find the power hungry would-be saviors of humanity ready to "help" when it's usually these same psychotic people who cause the problems in the first place. The neo-cons operate in this way, though the people are not suffering deep enough to let the ride roughshod over our liberties and install a neo-con dictator quit yet.

AMack
07-02-2007, 02:28 PM
Indeed. Preemptive war is no more an answer to extremism than total withdrawal is. The good thing about withdrawing is that we don't have to spend ourselves into poverty, which would fulfill the extremist goal to destroy us by attacking our wallets.

I believe in strong borders, and in good security. I also believe that the very nature of America, our liberties and our freedoms, is what makes the Muslim population in America so agreeable. A significantly smaller portion of our Muslim population is radicalized than the Muslim population in Britain, France, and Europe in general. There is a reason for this, and it is for this reason that I never want America to be like Europe. I don't exactly know what it is that attracts good Muslims to this country and prevents the radicalization of the Muslim population, but I do know that whatever it is, we need to keep it up. I suppose it is like that for most every group that comes here. Liberty and prosperity are better motivators than extremist religious doctrine. If the Middle East had more liberty and prosperity, we probably wouldn't be facing this extremist threat.

Trevorjustco
07-02-2007, 02:32 PM
Gee: One of the arguments that this guy is making is that the Islamic radicals view their fight as one against the entire world and its "secularizing" and corruptive influences on the Muslim nations. That being said, who wouldn't agree that the U.S. has been integral in secularizing several Muslim nations?

I don't think this disagrees with Ron Paul at all. Its just another (important) facet to the argument.

It is foolish to say that a strict interpretation of "blowback" is the complete explanation of the problem. It is only a term invented to explain a simple concept.
The causes and reasons of blowback on behalf of the counter-aggressors are not precisely defined.

d991
07-02-2007, 02:44 PM
I finished reading "Blowback" and am in the middle of reading "Dying to Win" which were two books Ron Paul suggested Rudy Giuliani read (I doubt he read them.)

From what I took away from these two books is that U.S. foreign policy plays a significant role in radicalizing people all over the world. The major contributing factor for terrorism, and especially suicide terrorism, is occupation of a country by a foreign force. Terrorism is certainly not limited to muslim nations, and there have been many Marxist-Leninst based groups in countries like Sri Lanka that perform suicide attacks to achieve their goals.

Of course there will be offshoots of these occupation fighting groups that interpret goals differently and then seek to achieve their own aims. This is what should be troubling to people. Hezbollah and Hamas, while performing horrible acts against civilians, have 'mission' statements with a basis that they want to remove Israeli forces from what they consider their homeland. Neither group claims that they want to kill Americans unless they occupy their lands, as Hezbollah showed in 1983.

The ironic thing is that people like Bush and Giuliani seem to think that being on the "offence" against terrorism is cruicial, but I don't think they really understand that these kinds of actions are fanning the flames of extremists and creating more groups that not only are against occupation but come up with their own goals, possibly that they want to convert all societies to follow muslim laws. In either case, in the present form the "war on terror" can not work. Attacking Iran will make matters worse, since you will get Shiite muslims becoming more radicalized which will in turn cause Sunni muslims to radicalize as well, similar to bin Laden and al Queda. Unfortunately most of the candidates for the White House probably don't understand these points, and the most worrying thing is that Bush still have a year and a half in office.......

Gee
07-02-2007, 03:02 PM
It is foolish to say that a strict interpretation of "blowback" is the complete explanation of the problem. It is only a term invented to explain a simple concept.
Yes, but Islamic terrorism itself is not a complete picture of senseless violence. There are crazies of all walks of life, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. There may be a few Muslims willing to blow themselves up "for our freedoms" or because a McDonald's opens up in Baghdad, but they are certainly no greater in number, and probably much fewer, than the other sorts of people who commit violence for less-than-sane reasons.

Honestly, if people really wanted to stop senseless violence, they wouldn't start with Islamic terrorism. They might start with spousal abuse.

Its all a bunch of crap. Terrorism's danger is inflated because its a headline-grabber; the media likes to report on it because it makes them money. The much larger numbers of traffic fatalities per year doesn't sell newspapers. Unfortunately, our actions seem to have spurred the very thing we feared, and I only hope al Qaeda isn't planning something bigger than 9/11...

Silverback
07-02-2007, 03:11 PM
As Dr. Paul often says, imagine if you were in their shoes.

Imagine there's a lunatic Imam who says it's your duty to God to blow yourself up in order to kill a few Americans, you've never been harmed by these Americans, in fact you've never even seen one in your village. The crazy Imam may be tolerated but he's not going to do a lot of recruiting is he?

Now imagine your village has been bombed by American planes, or you lost a family member to collateral damage or even that Americans have kicked in your door in the middle of the night and pointed a gun at your head when they swept your neighborhood. All these things help the crazy Imam seem sane.

It's complicated, anyone who says the right course is a simple choice is a fool.

mikelovesgod
07-02-2007, 03:51 PM
There is a big difference between being in their shoes and knowing they are maniacs to begin with. That's my only fear. I'm not endorsing a foreign policy of war. No matter what we can't do that, it drains us financially. The problem is we started a fire, and now it's spreading throughout the world.

Paul is right, my only question is how will it end? These people want to annihilate the world, and have wanted to do so for 1000 years. To think otherwise is to be blind to history. They conquered the Middle East, Northern Africa, and by war, and Spain. The Crusades were necessary to stop their take-over of Europe and drive them from the Holy Land.

Anyone who looks beyond the abuses of the Crusaders and saw the front of Muslims who were going to invade Europe forget what a mess the world was back then. These people have the same mind-set. They basically took over Spain with Jewish backing in the Moorish conquest. They knew the Jews didn't proselytize so it worked well for both sides.

Slightly less than 1000 years ago the world faced something worse than what we have now. If you think these people don't think they can't finish the job you are not aware of theological/political sub-substructure. There is a reason they don't attack China, because China won't play nice. China would nuke them to Hell and they know it. They attack those people who use democracy, and have openly said so.

Silverback
07-02-2007, 04:16 PM
You give them too much credit Mike.

What happened 1000 years ago isn't really relevent, those people are all dead.

The claim that they've been determined to take over the world for the last 1000 years seems to me to indicate they're no real threat, they haven't had any success whatever.

The actual terrorist threat is entirely overblown, every attack is a joke. Even on 9/11, when incompetence so extreme many people believe it must have been intentional allowed them to get lucky, they screwed up every target.

Boxcutters, that's the most dangerous weapon they've got.

They missed the white house and had to hit a secondary target.

The plane intended for the Capitol building they lost control and crashed in a field.

Both tower planes hit too high and tens of thousands escaped the towers.

None of their other attacks seem to have the organization or competence of the average boy scout troop behind them.

Relax, they're an irritation not an existential threat.

I understand your other point though, nonintervention is all very good but that doesn't mean we can ignore our responsibilities to clean up the messes our interventions have caused. Dr. Paul has addressed that point. It's a balance that must be found.

He sometimes sounds too extreme in his reaction to our extreme policy, there's immense frustration there because he was right about Iraq all along and no one would listen. I recognize that frustration. I share it.

Roxi
07-02-2007, 04:19 PM
has anyone seen "the oil factor"....if not i HIGHLY recommend it ...one of the best documentaries on Iraq ive ever seen

heres the link to watch it on google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243

Tsoman
07-02-2007, 04:41 PM
When I fight with my girlfriend, I am willing to lose the argument in favor of the greater good...

If by withdrawing from the Middle East the terrorists think they have won, I don't care. If the consequence of being seen as "losing" the war on terror is peace, then I'm all for it (given that our sovereignty is not threatened of course).

wecandoit
07-02-2007, 04:42 PM
Paul is absolutely not wrong. He couldn't be more right.

damijin
07-02-2007, 04:49 PM
Ask any Brit, the Daily Mail is a crock of shit. They run the most ridiculous stories that are completely pulled out of their ass just to get people reading their crap.

Ponce
07-02-2007, 05:04 PM
MikelovesGod? you are so right, the damage has been done..... there is no such a thing as "only half pregnant"........ baby coming your pretty soon :mad:

There is not such a thing as a "born terrorist"...... a good example are the Palestinian people, they were living in peace with the Jews in Palestine before the Zionists invaded Palestine starting in 1918.

To me the Palestinians are not terrorists but freedom fighters.

mikelovesgod
07-02-2007, 05:11 PM
Actually Silver, I'm under-estimating them. You have no idea how far these people will go. These people feel the threat of a Jewish nation, which they despise, and it's power over them. When an animal is threatened you can't underestimate what it's going to do. Our influence in the Middle East on behest of an enemy cannot be understated.

"And maybe this is a clue to what we find puzzling in Islam. In 1936, when Europe was preparing for a new fratricidal war, the Muslim world seemed, to most Europeans, hopelessly backward and irrelevant; but Hilaire Belloc warned that Islam was a sleeping giant. It had nearly destroyed Christendom before, he said, and it might yet revive and threaten us again. At the time Belloc's view seemed eccentric. Now it seems eerily prophetic." Joseph Sobran


I'm not talking about attacks like 9/11, but a movement that is within all of Europe, and the only thing that has slowed them down is the oceans. Jesse Ventura made a very wise comment showing how weak our country is when he pointed out the crazy sniper in DC and how much power he had over a city. He said 10 groups of men with guns could cripple this nation. I agree with him.

We are not used to collateral damage at home, only abroad. Wait until it comes here and the media goes into a frenzy and the city goes into calamity. That's not an under-statement. Look at what 2 people did in DC and realize how weak this country is emotionally to take any degree of terrorism. I'm not saying it will happen, but we have to realize they don't need to take over a country to win their goals, just take the mind of the people to make laws which benefit them and then force their ways through using democracy. It's worked in France and in many countries in Europe where the countries are contracepting themselves into oblivion and the Muslims are taking over (e.g. Italy, Denmark, France, etc.)

You under-estimate them because mentally they are willing to risk everything because they have nothing to lose. Ever play sports? Who is the most dangerous opponent? The guy with no fear.

mikelovesgod
07-02-2007, 05:21 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of nation smashing, but you can' t kill over a million people in one country and then put your hands up diplomatically and just apologize. They are still going to hate us, just not as much. They are rallying the troops and these men are insane on both sides.

We killed so many people we shouldn't have, destroyed a sovereignty we shouldn't have touched, and no matter what we do it will have long term effects. Even if Paul comes in he will get blamed for this unjust aggression by our country. I'm almost feel bad because he's so right, but the world is already burning. No matter how much water he puts on it it's still a wildfire.

Mesogen
07-02-2007, 06:32 PM
I mean, what does a hardcore Muslim think of Denmark, where prostitution is legal?

He he. The hardcore Muslims HATE Denmark now, after the whole Mohammed cartoon thing.

Mesogen
07-02-2007, 06:41 PM
That DailyMail article read like total disinfo. Just my opinion.

There are some dangerous people out there and some real wackos ready to kill and die in the name of Islam, but that doesn't mean we have to go around invading and occupying countries. That only makes it worse.

If we're worried about terrorists with WMDs, then we really need to be taking care of loose fissile material from the former USSR and even Pakistan, who used to be pretty loose with their nuclear technology. Maybe they still are.

But a lot of the people you see going crazy in the streets are just morons.

Have you seen the most ironic protester ever?
http://www.photojournal.co.uk/timothy_allen_photographer_photos/timothy%20allen_extreme%20irony.jpg

singapore_sling
07-02-2007, 06:53 PM
As I have said before, even if foreign policy isn't the case, a non-interventionist foreign policy would give them no more excuses and the entire world would see that. That way we would have the backing of all other countries because it would then be clear that they are just plain intolerant of anything or anyone that isn't deemed "pure islamic".

klamath
07-02-2007, 07:23 PM
This is the way I see it.
If we as Americans believe we are at war with all of Islam or we are at war to keep the oil flowing then we had better buckle down and fight this war all out like WWII. Quit trying to live in a state of denial that we can go on living a peace time life while tossing a few son’s and daughters lives toward a far off battle that is only going to get worse. And if this is the case that we are at war with all Islamic people of the world and not just a radical few, every American Mother and Father with their sons and daughters in tow needs to walk down to the military recruiting station and sign on the dotted line. It is going to take a lot of bodies to kill 1.5 billion Muslims. Nukes in places like India wouldn’t be a good idea or we will end up fighting 1 billion Hindu’s.

If as I believe we are at war with a radical few then we need to get out of the middle East and deprive al Qaeda the rallying and recruitment point of American occupation. If some are thinking I am an appeaser and pacifist you could not be more wrong. It is my firm belief that all things in this universe are about force and counterforce and the struggle to survive. War and terrorism, which are one in the same, will always be in this universe and I will fight for my freedom and right to live without hesitation however it is a ghastly horrible thing that can bring out the worse elements of human nature. If we can find different strategies that cost less in human life and defuse the constant human struggles where it is possible and where they involve us I believe we should go that route.

Starks
07-02-2007, 07:30 PM
Ron will be tough on terrorism if we get attacked. He just won't be looking for fights.

ButchHowdy
07-02-2007, 08:13 PM
Surprisingly, what has NOT been mentioned on this thread is the weightier extremism - radical CHRISTIANITY!

I am a lover of Jesus Christ and a scripture freak and I can honestly say that christianity has been hijacked by a Zionist agenda for the last 150 years.

The problem is the Pat Robertsons, John Hagees, and Falwellites that truly believe that the Israel of the Middle East is also the 'chosen' Israel of the bible and God needs our help to defend them

Early in the scripture, they were chosen but fast forward to Jeremiah 3:8, you will see that God divorced them because they were whores.

Nefertiti
07-02-2007, 08:47 PM
Islam is an anachronism.

Much like the Christianity of the Dark and Middle Ages, Islam needs a renaissance, an enlightenment of its own in order to harmonize it with rational and modern social values.

Their society and culture is backwards, therefore, their religion reflects that.


If you love freedom as much as your name suggests, why is it any of your business to tell others how their religion should be?

Korey Kaczynski
07-02-2007, 08:50 PM
If you love freedom as much as your name suggests, why is it any of your business to tell others how their religion should be?

He's not forcing anything on anybody, he is giving suggestions;.

1000-points-of-fright
07-02-2007, 08:51 PM
I asked this same question in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=4933) and was pretty much shouted down as an idiot swallowing what the MSM is spoon feeding the country.

I'm glad this thread is at least trying to answer the question I asked:

I agree that withdrawing and minding our own business will take a lot of wind out of their sails, but the damage is done. Even if we make nice there will still be a few (read: several thousand) jihadis who are beyond reason. The law enforcement model of showing up afterwards to draw the chalk outline and catch the perps doesn't cut it for me when the crime includes mass casualties.

To answer the question of why the US has fewer radicalized Muslims than Europe, I think it's because we're capitalists and so are they. The Middle East has an ancient history of trading, bartering, bargaining and haggling. They're a culture of businessmen and entrepreneurs. America is perfect for them.

Nefertiti
07-02-2007, 08:51 PM
I believe much of the leadership in the Islamic world think this way, but they would not have such devoted followers if it wasn't for American foreign policy. Most people are the same, wether they are Americans or Arabs...they just want to live their life, get married, have kids, and enjoy life without dramatic upset. We give middle east leaders all they need to whip people up in a frenzy. Anywhere you find a suffering people, you will find the power hungry would-be saviors of humanity ready to "help" when it's usually these same psychotic people who cause the problems in the first place. The neo-cons operate in this way, though the people are not suffering deep enough to let the ride roughshod over our liberties and install a neo-con dictator quit yet.

Indeed, Muslims in the Middle East want to live their life freely as people in the US live their life. They may not choose to live it exactly like an American Christian would but they would like to have the option to choose what is best for them.

You know, the other day on an Egyptian Web site there was a thread about immigrating to America. So many Egyptians were expressing their great desire to come live here because they admire America and its freedoms so much. One guy wrote something like, "It is my greatest dream to go to America. I just want to be able to spend a dollar, and then I can die." I know many Egyptians who disagree with US policy in the Middle East, but you will be hard pressed to find one that doesn't admire the life that Americans live in their own country.

Nefertiti
07-02-2007, 08:55 PM
He's not forcing anything on anybody, he is giving suggestions;.

OK, he's not forcing it. But why does it matter to him if Muslims choose to live their lives differently from him? If the way Muslims live their life is backwards from his perspective, then he perhaps should think about the fact that his suggestions might seem a little backwards to Muslims.

Korey Kaczynski
07-02-2007, 09:04 PM
OK, he's not forcing it. But why does it matter to him if Muslims choose to live their lives differently from him? If the way Muslims live their life is backwards from his perspective, then he perhaps should think about the fact that his suggestions might seem a little backwards to Muslims.

It matters to him because he feel "his way" is better. That's why.

SeekLiberty
07-02-2007, 09:13 PM
There is a great article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alex_wal_070701_ron_paul_3a_making_ame.htm

From the article:

"...the fact that we are not protecting our borders exposes the entire exercise as nothing more than a criminal sham. It negates any claims that we are protecting our national security interests in fighting them abroad. Pulling our troops back and stationing them along the border makes far more sense than the policy we are pursuing now."

"...the fact that we are not protecting our borders exposes the entire exercise as nothing more than a criminal sham.

Yes, very good article. You'd think most Americans could see that the very fact our military is not securing our own borders glaringly demonstrates an outragious criminal scam by our Commander in Chief.

It's right there in our face. The non-action here proves it. Why do some have such a hard time connecting the dots?

- SL

1000-points-of-fright
07-02-2007, 09:14 PM
Ron will be tough on terrorism if we get attacked. He just won't be looking for fights.

That's my problem the vagueness of just saying "I'm a non-interventionist". I don't want to be attacked. I want to try to prevent attacks. I think Ron Paul needs to clearly define what he is and is not willing to do for national security. It would go a long way to ease the concerns of the average American who is a-scared of those evil terrorists.

klamath
07-02-2007, 10:10 PM
Only us as private citizens have a chance to to stop terrorism. Since 911 it has been the alert private citizen that has stopped further attacks. It has not been the "save us agencies" that has stopped the terrorists.

LibertyBelle
07-02-2007, 10:44 PM
Quote from mikelovesgod: "You under-estimate them because mentally they are willing to risk everything because they have nothing to lose. Ever play sports? Who is the most dangerous opponent? The guy with no fear."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the cabal in the White House and their partners in crime. :D

Gimme Some Truth
07-02-2007, 11:16 PM
Ron Paul wants OBL dead. That is clear. He isnt soft on terrorism. Far from it. If anyone is soft on terrorism its the likes of Bush and all the Congressmen who let OBL go in order to fill their own pockets in Iraq.

On a side note. Iv only ever seen 1 video of OBL giving his reasons for hating the US/UK. In which he gave a story about a wolf , a baby lamb and the lambs mother, if i remember correctly. It went something like this :

The baby lamb is drinking from a stream, when the wolf comes up to him and accuses him of dirtying the water. So the wolf eats the baby lamb. The babies mother sees this and headbutts the wolf . Everyone turns around and says "did you see that! the lamb attacked the wolf!!!"

somethin like that anyway :)

What im sayin is ,from my experience, OBL's reasons are exactly what Ron Paul is saying. They dont hate us for our (diminishing)freedoms or how much (paper) money we have in our pockets ..but because we have been attacking , occupying and starving the ME for a long time.


EDIT: Heres the vid i was tryin to describe : http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8528473151254739053&q=bin+laden&total=9036&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Roxi
07-02-2007, 11:34 PM
The baby lamb is drinking from a stream, when the wolf comes up to him and accuses him of dirtying the water. So the wolf eats the baby lamb. The babies mother sees this and headbutts the wolf . Everyone turns around and says "did you see that! the lamb attacked the wolf!!!"



what this says to me is that iraq (or whoever) was minding thier own business and the US (the wolf) comes along and bombs the shit out of them for personal gain...the mother sheep (middle east) in response attacks the wolf, and the media and public assume the sheep attacked first

so RP is exactly right in what he said about the 9/11 attacks...he never said we deserved it, only that it wasn't a surprise attack for no reason

klamath
07-03-2007, 09:24 AM
I am all for us cleaning up our foreign policy like Paul suggests however I think it is extremely detrimental to the campaign to make heroes out of the people that we have been at war with. Just because we are wrong doesn't mean they are right. Saddam was one evil SOB, as well as OBL. As horrible as Abu Ghraib was, that is the standard on the insurgent side. No country is the innocent victim. Let us concentrate on cleaning up OUR act without making heroes of other countries just because they are against us.

JaylieWoW
07-03-2007, 10:01 AM
Anyone familiar with the Bus Stuck in the Tunnel story?

Basically it goes something like this...


Exceeding the maximum height, a bus gets stuck at the entrance of a tunnel. Experts in every applicable field mobilize heavy equipment but fail to remove the bus from the tunnel. A spectator (usually a small child in the versions of this story I've heard), suggests letting the air out of the tires in order to lower the bus just enough to remove it from the tunnel. Amazingly, (or maybe not very), it works.


Our foreign policy is much like that bus. The "experts" who couldn't see the simplicity of solving the problem are much like the ones who run our foreign policy today. It isn't about showing who is the biggest and the baddest, or for that matter the "rightest". However, by continuing to provide ample fodder for the radicals to use, we are in essence courting our own "bus" disaster.

Spirit of '76
07-03-2007, 10:31 AM
Is there a large number of muslims who subscribe to the notion of "global jihad" and will continue to advocate violence against the West no matter what we do? Of course there are.

Is there a large number of muslims who despise Western "decadence" and the fact that we push it on the rest of the world? Of course there are. (Heck, I know many Westerners who aren't too happy about it.)

But if we do what Ron Paul is saying and establish a noninterventionist foreign policy, we will complete destroy the number one propaganda weapon of these jihadists, the idea that they are justified in attacking us because we are occupying their lands and meddling in their affairs.

Right now, much of Europe -- especially western Europe -- has its own problems with radical Islam. Yet we receive little sympathy from them when it comes to our problems with radical Islam. The rest of the Western world, with a few exceptions like Australia and Britain, have distanced themselves from us when it comes to such matters. We must ask ourselves why.

The answer is that everyone else in the world but us seems able to see that we have indeed been poking the muslim hornet nest with a stick for a long, long time; therefore, they don't feel too sorry for us when we get stung. But if we implement the Foreign Policy of Freedom and establish a doctrine of non-intervention, I maintain that we will see the pendulum of global opinion swing back toward our favor.

By removing the jihadists' prime propaganda weapon, our interference in their countries, all they will have left in their propaganda arsenal are exhortations to proselytize unbelievers and attacks on our decadence. Then perhaps the slogan "they just hate us for our Freedom" might have some validity. The rest of the world might be somewhat sympathetic to them as long as we're fighting Islam militarily, but I don't think they will stand for Islam attacking the West when the West is not antagonizing them.

tsoldrin
07-03-2007, 10:38 AM
Have any of you actually even met a muslim ever? Here's a simple fact: If we weren't screwing with them continually, the extremists wouldn't even have a hold of their OWN countries. The majority of these folks don't want a worldwide caliphate, they just want to be left alone! What we've done with our wrongheaded policies is elevate what is basically their equivalent of lunatic street prophets into positions of leadership - because we're making their crazy rantings come true!

The far superior method of extering influence on the world is financially. We're an economic juggernaught and there'd be no stopping us on that front.

angelatc
07-03-2007, 10:46 AM
There is a reason they don't attack China, because China won't play nice. China would nuke them to Hell and they know it. They attack those people who use democracy, and have openly said so.

They have been tussling with China in Africa, over oil. To me, the geographic argument makes the most sense. China and Russia are far closer targets if they're bent on wiping out all the entire non-Islamic world.

Gigaplex
07-03-2007, 11:56 AM
There are of course many reasons that they join these groups. I happen to think it is a two part process. First they get very angry about our foreign policy. They probably have some loved ones that are killed by US soldiers for no good reason. In that kind of extreme emotional pain, a person will typically turn to religion for comfort and guidence. The extreme form of the religion resonates with some in that kind of turmoil and now you have a double whammy.

So they might be going out and doing terrorism for their religion but you gotta look at what put them in the state of mind to accept that extreme form of the religion.

smtwngrl
07-03-2007, 12:37 PM
There have been a lot of thoughtful answers to this question. I would just like to add this.

Ron Paul is a wise man. And anyone who hears him speak knows he is very knowledgeable about economics, history and foreign policy. Not only that, but if he is elected, he will surround himself with people who are knowledgeable. And on areas that he is not as knowledgeable, he is open to gaining more knowledge.

Right now, I am reading "Imperial Hubris: Why The West Is Losing the War on Terror" by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA (who retired in 2004). It is packed with information. Even if someone read up to page 20, he could learn a lot.

This book is one of the ones Ron Paul recommended to Giuliani. After having read only part of it (so far), I believe it's a book that should be read by anyone who aspires to become president. But since Giuliani is unlikely to benefit from his assigned books, I think they are there for *us*.

Remember, in the days of the founding fathers, how educated the average person was? The Federalist Papers were written to be understandable to the average citizen (living then).

Also, on June 15, Ron Paul had a rally in Kansas City. In the question and answer time, someone asked what we could do for him, besides donating our money/time. He said the best thing we could do is to educate ourselves, so that when questions came up, we would be able to answer them convincingly.

klamath
07-03-2007, 01:49 PM
Thought Europe may have been right on Iraq their hands are as bloody as ours. As a vereran of the Iraq war I can tell you that most all of Saddam's weapon are Russian, French, or Italian made.