Foriegn Policy Agrument Help!

[Kotin]

at my local highschool

after converting the principal(was a thompson leaner) and a volleyball coach(totally oblivious to politics)

i was arguing with a teacher about foreign policy, and she loves all Dr.Paul's Ideas EXCEPT the war in iraq

i couldnt convince her it was wrong, she thinks its ok to be in japan and korea and europe, when i talked about we shouldnt occupy the world and police the world she responded "we stay in those country to keep stability, but they are still soveriegn nations"

what can i say to close the deal on this teacher?

[billjarrett]

Unless something changes, we'll be out of all those countries by 2040 anyways

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE

Economy has been #1 issue for me. No other candidate wants to touch whats in this video with a 40 foot pole. I've converted people who didn't believe with alot of Ron Pauls views on just that one issue.

[Kotin]

Unless something changes, we'll be out of all those countries by 2040 anyways

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE

Economy has been #1 issue for me. No other candidate wants to touch whats in this video with a 40 foot pole. I've converted people who didn't believe with alot of Ron Pauls views on just that one issue.

thank you, can you give me a basic argument please?
i just want to be fully prepared!

[bamacre]

Yes, it costs money, and we are going broke. That video posted above is good, there is another story about this on youtube, search for "David Walker." May also want to tell her what the CIA means when they say blowback. :D

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Ask her what justification we have in placing hundreds of thousands of troops across dozens of nations worldwide? What right do we have to do this based on the Constitution of the US?

Has she read the Koran? Read it cover to cover, and you will learn that it is the DUTY of all Muslims to "violently resist foreign occupation."

So why are we making military bases in their land???

[Kotin]

Yes, it costs money, and we are going broke. That video posted above is good, there is another story about this on youtube, search for "David Walker." May also want to tell her what the CIA means when they say blowback. :D

thank you. i will take all the help i can get.

[Iwantchange]

I always argue role reversal, how happy would she be if Japan & Germany had a base in the US? Not very many people like that idea.

The other argument is financial... Does she want to continue to police the world and possible go into a depression or does she want her dollar to actually have value? Because the bottom line is, we can continue to support it financially.

[TaiwanGuy]

i wrote this to my father (who is a lot like your teacher). it is long but pertinent:

dad,

i just wanted to explain why i have changed my position on american interaction with the world. since 9-11 i was fully on board with bush's preemptive war policies and the war in iraq. like you, i thought that this event should mark a change in the world and our foreign policy. almost everyone agreed. most politicians (including democrats) were on board with this as well.

the democrats did not convince me with their flip-flop on the iraq war. their excuses were flimsy and basically amounted to "we're losing, lets run". that seemed to me to be a stupid reason to leave. i believed that leaving iraq would leave a terrorist breeding ground. i still believe that would happen if a withdraw happens under a democrat such as obama or hillary.

then i heard ron paul speak and started to research his position to see if it had any merit. his position is MUCH different than the democrats position on foreign policy. he wants to completely revamp our foreign policy. he has believed this for a long time (long before 9-11 or the iraq war).

first, i want to address a concern of yours:
terrorists hate us because we are free and because of our culture
this is partly true. osama bin laden and other leaders of terrorist organizations like al qaeda will hate us no matter what. that does not depend on our foreign policies. these idealists will always exist. but that is not the important issue. the issue is that these people, themselves, do not attack us. they recruit foot soldiers. a HUGE proportion of these soldiers are saudis. idealists attract these recruits by feeding their fears that america is trying to take over their nation.

this is not just a theory. it has been supported by many intelligence reports. michael scheuer was the chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's bin Laden unit. he knows way more than almost anyone on earth about the workings of bin laden's organization.

he said:

"I think it's essential that our leaders begin to square with the American people. We are under attack by Islamic militants for what we do in the world -- not for who we are or what we believe in.

"Quite simply, American policies in the Islamic world are Osama bin Laden's only indispensable ally. In terms of a future attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests, I believe it's a near certainty. Part of bin Laden's genius is to have maintained an almost exclusive focus on the U.S. in his attacks...

"...One of the points that bin Laden makes that has the most resonance in the Islamic world is American support for Muslim tyrannies in places like Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and most recently Libya. As long as our support for those states continue, bin Laden's support will grow in the Islamic world...

"...[It is] absolutely right that our military presence on the Arabian peninsula and in other Muslim countries is a source from which bin Laden draws great support among Muslims...

"...I think it would be most interesting to ask the former DCI, Mr. Tenet, whether he told the president before the recent war in Iraq that it would be a very bad idea for the U.S. to occupy Iraq which is the second holiest place in Islam in that it was already perceived as occupying the Arabian Peninsula, the first holiest place in Islam and the Israelis occupied Jerusalem, the third holiest place in Islam. It's a point that should have been made to the president that whatever the threat posed by Saddam and Iraq, the occupation of Iraq along with the other two sanctities (Arabian Peninsula and Jerusalem) would offend the bulk of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims whether or not they supported Osama bin Laden..."

he explains that bin laden and other of these idealists are just preachers. they rely on the paradoxes and agressiveness of american foreign policy to attract individuals willing to sacrifice their lives in what they consider to defense of their nations and families. we fuel bin laden's efforts. scheurer has stated that ron paul's foreign policy would suck the life out of al qaeda's recruiting efforts. al qaeda would wither and die.

next, and perhaps more importantly, i want to point out:
the foreign policy and our economic problems are linked
you have stated that you completely agree with paul on the income tax, the federal reserve, having a stable monetary unit, cutting gov't size, etc. unfortunately (or fortunately in my eyes), you have to make a choice between a massive foreign policy and a healthy economy. we fund our wars and intervention by printing up the money needed. that causes the inflation which is largely responsible for the problems our economy is facing now. if we eliminated the unconstitutional income tax (yeah!), stopped printing a fiat currency, and eliminated the fed, we would NOT be able to continue operating military bases around the world, financing foreign gov't 's and fighting this war on terror. and the reverse is true as well (meaning our economic problems are brought upon us partly by our foreign policy).

THIS is why ron paul has been able to remain completely consistent throughout a political career that has spanned nearly four decades. its because he doesnt try to take some of this idea and some of that. he understands that a policy of liberty is all-encompassing.

this is why i have changed my stance and why i believe VERY STRONGLY in paul's vision.

talk to you later!

Matt

[pdavis]

Her argument is essentially implying that we have an obligation (the requirement imposed on a debtor to pay a debt and the legal right of a creditor to enforce payment; a personal relation in which one is indebted for a service or favor) to be forced in taxation and men to defend and protect other nations. Ask her how and when this obligation was made? Do liberals and socialist not make similar arguments when it comes to welfare? That we have a moral obligation to help are fellow man through force.

[ChickenHawk]

I just tell people they don't have to agree with his foreign policy. They just have to be concerned about the neo-con foreign policy that is going to get us into a very bad war. There is no way his foreign policy would ever be completely implemented but he could certainly pull us back from the neo-con agenda and that would be a major improvement. I think that a policy of complete non-interventionism is insane and I would not support Ron Paul if I thought he could implement it. Right now we need to reduce our offensive posture in the world and he is the best guy to do it.

[Thomas Paine]

Tell whoever you are trying to convince that the national debt has reached $9 Trillion and that excludes future obligations for Social Security and Medicare. That $9 Trillion equates to about $33,000 per person approximately. This country cannot afford to post tens of thousands of soldiers around the world and the Bush administration knows it. That's why Paul Wolfowitz argued so hard before the Iraq War that it would only cost $50 Billion and that it would pay for itself from the oil revenues. What a bunch of bullshit! Now, we have incurred $1 Trillion in additional debt from the Iraq War over the last five years and John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 Years. That comes out to $20 Trillion in additional expense from the Iraq War alone. Are the neocon hijackers of the Republican Party that crazy that they would mortgage future generations to a misbegotten war???

[m72mc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgav80cpbg they dont want u there


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE halliburton profitering

pick a city *scary* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg where butto say who killed usama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zteunEcP5-U more deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk long but explains why things happen as they do now

[Goldwater Conservative]

If we're in other countries for "stability," point out that those countries are perfectly stable on their own. What's going to happen if we leave South Korea? North Korea is going to invade, despite having an economy one-fiftieth as strong? And with the Chinese, Russians, and Americans all standing ready? With our 21st Century military, we don't need to be parked around the world to respond to threats elsewhere.

Also, point out how our presence around the world gives the appearance of us being an empire, thereby making other countries and people more hostile to us and lowers public opinion of the United States. The significance of that is that it unites otherwise disparate groups and galvanizes otherwise ordinary people into radicals who choose to fight the "infidels" occupying their homelands. This is a concept called "blowback" and it's recognized as a major cause of modern terrorism by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.

Edit: I originally overestimated North Korea's GDP as being one-thirteenth of South Korea's. They're even more pathetic than I realized.

[Kotin]

thanks all!