U.S. Foreign Policy

[lexington86]

This started in the pro-gun candidate thread with this:

I fail to see the love for Ron Paul? What is it about him that you like? I think he's a nut job. He wants to pull all our troups out of Iraq he wants to be less involved with Israel and he wants the middle east to take care of their own problems. Problem with that logic is that Iran will get a nuke--terrorists will re-group---and we will have dirty boms going off in our cities because our borders are not secure. Please explain why Ron Paul is so great. Ps, he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination. The only candidate i liked was Fred Thompson.

Here is my first response:

I suggest you actually do some research before making claims like that. It's been shown time and time again that the terrorist groups want to kill us for pretty much one reason: we've been occupying their lands for decades. Have you read the 9/11 Commision Report? It says exactly that. Nukes in Iran?! Please. We are the only government in the world that still believes Iran has nuclear weapons. Will they be able to make them in the not-too-distant future? Probably. But you also have to understand that the "big three" developed nations (U.S., Russia, and China) have a combined nuclear arsenal so vast that the government of Iran would never ever use one against us because they are quite aware of the consequences. The only way nuclear weapons could be used against us is if terrorists get a hold of one. But guess what, they don't need to wait for Iran. Russia has so much unaccounted for nuclear material that it'd be much easier to get some from up north (and that hasn't happened yet, as far as we know). So in that matter, Iran is the least of our worries.

Why the hell are we involved with Israel? What good is it doing for the American people or this country's national defense? You know that at the same time we're supporting Israel, we're also sending money to Iraq, Palestine, etc (i.e. traditional "enemies" of the Israeli state). Another important fact you must understand is that conflict in the Middle East is nothing new (not even remotely). Hell, Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel) was the birthplace of ancient warfare. Sumerian city-states were warring (just like they are now) as far back as 2300 BC. Do you really think it's wise for the U.S. to step in and try to quell over 4000 years of conflict? The simple fact of the matter is that the sooner we leave the Middle East, the better. You are right about one thing: our borders are definitely not secure. But I fail to see the "logic" in your reasoning that the best way to secure them is to commit huge amounts of money and manpower to unnecessary foreign conflicts that only make people hate us more.

/rant over

And a rebuttal:

okay guys, i was looking for what Ron Paul had to offer---i see i stirred the pot in a different direction.

To answer your questions / comments, the only reason we remotly give a shit about the middle east is because of our dependencay on their oil. Without oil, we are f'd. The problem is that if those countries remain unchecked, it becomes a safe haven for terrorists (with a lot of money). Would you prefer that we fight them here or there? They don't hate us because we are there, they hate us because we are different. That whole regoin has been fighting the holy war since the begining of time and now they decided they want to reach out and play with us. Just think how much they liked us when we were giving them stinger missiles to fight against russia. If you are realy that nieve that you think that if we just leave that they will just leave us alone, i feel sorry for you. The only thing leaving will do is give them time to re-group and plan their next attack on us. I for one would much sooner fight them over there than here in the states.

So, really, what does Ron Paul bring to the table? I honestly thought he was a nut job and never looked into him as a real candidate. Please educate me.

And another response:

Naive, huh? Once again I'll ask, have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? What evidence do you have to back up your claims? Many terrorist leaders have said pretty clearly that they just want us out. Many terrorism experts have come to the same conclusion: they hate us because we're occupying their land. Of course they liked us when we gave them missiles; we weren't the ones invading Afghanistan. And once again I'll state: I fail to see the "logic" in your reasoning that the best way to secure our borders is to commit huge amounts of money and manpower to unnecessary foreign conflicts that only make people hate us more.

Here I'd like to point out a vital flaw in your argument. The people in the Middle East weren't the ones who started the "holy wars". It was the Christian kings an knights of Europe who decided they needed to declare war on the Muslim people because they were different (i.e. The Crusades). So, by using your same argument, it seems that the Christians were the terrorists of their time?

And another rebuttal:

Okay, I’ll try to address your post the best I can. I like a good debate. It is true, I am not a strong history buff but I know enough to talk about it. I am also not one of those people that believes that I am always right. If you can enlighten me, I’m willing to listen to your ideas.

First, I have not read the 9/11 report. Nor do I plan too. I look at .gov reports with a very skeptical eye. Just like the intel that said Iraq had WMD’s. We all know that bush 2 went in there because he had an axe to grind. He wanted to replace their past .gov with a friendlier .gov to help protect our interests and make it look like he was doing something about terror. I think if terror was the real goal, we should have focused our efforts in Afganistan-Pakastan-Saudi Arabia.

While I do agree that some of them don’t like us on their soil, I also feel that they will still bring the fight to us even if we leave them alone. They do not like our ideals. The problem with leaving them alone is that that region has a very precious commodity, oil. It is the unfortunate fact of life that the USA has to be the world police because we have become a nation of consumers. In a global econemy, we have to protect out interests in things that we as a nation need to support us as hungery consumers. Can you imagine the chaos restricted oil flow and increasingly high oil cost can put on our nation? Look at what the increased oil prices is doing to us already.

Now, with that said, we need to restore order and create an Iraqi govt that wants to be our friend or at least not let the terrorist groups that hate us have a safe haven and an endless money supply. If that takes reduced troop sizes to be there for the next 20 years so be it. We have troops stationed all over the world. As time goes on, our military role should obviously decrease as their own .gov takes control. We’ll just be moral support.

My logic on protecting us here by a conflict abroad is simple. If we address the problems there and keep the terrorists from getting a strong hold and implement a friendly .gov, the less likely we will need to deal with them here. If we keep blowing up terrorist camps and killing terrorists, the less likely they’ll ever get to try to sneak into the USA. The other problems I see with securing our own borders is that we can not agree on the best way to do it. What is Ron Paul’s immediate solution? I don’t know. Whatever it is, it will take years and tons of money to build a fence, wall etc. It will take huge amounts of money and how will he keep track of everyone? So, again, what is Ron Paul’s plan to secure our borders?

I never stated that the Muslims started the holy wars—did I? Regardless of who started it, there are and have always been very radical Muslims who truly believe that they should annihilate Christians--Americans. That in my opinion will never change.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

And my final response:

Okay, I’ll try to address your post the best I can. I like a good debate. It is true, I am not a strong history buff but I know enough to talk about it. I am also not one of those people that believes that I am always right. If you can enlighten me, I’m willing to listen to your ideas.

I've always enjoyed a good debate.

First, I have not read the 9/11 report. Nor do I plan too. I look at .gov reports with a very skeptical eye. Just like the intel that said Iraq had WMD’s. We all know that bush 2 went in there because he had an axe to grind. He wanted to replace their past .gov with a friendlier .gov to help protect our interests and make it look like he was doing something about terror. I think if terror was the real goal, we should have focused our efforts in Afganistan-Pakastan-Saudi Arabia.

It's not just the 9/11 report that agrees with what I've said. Here is a list of other books about the "blowback" our foreign policy has: Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer, Dying to Win by Robert Pape, and Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. Robert Pape writes that "The root cause of suicidal terrorism is foreign occupation". Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA group tasked with finding Bin Laden, had this to say about it: "This war has to do with our foreign policy and its impact in the Islamic world". Paul Wolfowitz has said "It's [the US Troop presence] has been a huge recruiting devise for al Qaeda".

Take a look at this (Michael starts to speak about half-way through):


At least we agree on the true motives for us being over there.

While I do agree that some of them don’t like us on their soil, I also feel that they will still bring the fight to us even if we leave them alone. They do not like our ideals. The problem with leaving them alone is that that region has a very precious commodity, oil. It is the unfortunate fact of life that the USA has to be the world police because we have become a nation of consumers. In a global econemy, we have to protect out interests in things that we as a nation need to support us as hungery consumers. Can you imagine the chaos restricted oil flow and increasingly high oil cost can put on our nation? Look at what the increased oil prices is doing to us already.

I believe that it is only a very small percentage of terrorists that hate us because we are not Muslims. Sure, some might even be will to try to bring the fight to us, but if we stopped spending huge amounts of money on foreign conflicts and instead put money into securing our nation, it would be quite difficult for them to even get in, let alone do any harm. Let me digress here for a second: When Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (guy who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor) was also asked to plan an attack on the U.S. West Coast, he advised the military junta that ruled Japan that the task was impossible, because when landing in America, "there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass." Too bad that is no longer the truth for this country (okay, digression over). Yes, dependence on foreign oil is a huge problem (perhaps our #1 problem). One thing that's important to understand about the Oil industry is that what we hear on the news about the Saudis jacking up the price is generally mis-guided. Much of the rise of the price of oil has to do with the rampant inflation that we have been experiencing. Take a look at this graph from the Wall Street Journal.

Note that the price of crude oil in Gold stays relatively constant. This is another reason why us being over there is doing more to hurt us. We have to spend huge amounts of cash that we don't have, and as a result the dollar suffers.

Now, with that said, we need to restore order and create an Iraqi govt that wants to be our friend or at least not let the terrorist groups that hate us have a safe haven and an endless money supply. If that takes reduced troop sizes to be there for the next 20 years so be it. We have troops stationed all over the world. As time goes on, our military role should obviously decrease as their own .gov takes control. We’ll just be moral support.

Like I said earlier, do you really think we're going to be able to "restore order" to a region that has been warring like this for over 4000 years? The truth is that the longer we stay over there, the more people the enemy will be able to rally against us. I also really think you should stop to evaluate the gravity of saying that we should be there 20 more years if we have to. Take a look at how things have gone for this country after only about 5 years of this war. If we stay there 20 more years, there won't be an America left to call home. The dollar would be worthless. The economy would lurch into depression. A depressed economy is the first step in the downfall of a nation. In a state like that, imagine how easy it would be for the radicals to launch attacks on the U.S. mainland. Scary stuff.

My logic on protecting us here by a conflict abroad is simple. If we address the problems there and keep the terrorists from getting a strong hold and implement a friendly .gov, the less likely we will need to deal with them here. If we keep blowing up terrorist camps and killing terrorists, the less likely they’ll ever get to try to sneak into the USA. The other problems I see with securing our own borders is that we can not agree on the best way to do it. What is Ron Paul’s immediate solution? I don’t know. Whatever it is, it will take years and tons of money to build a fence, wall etc. It will take huge amounts of money and how will he keep track of everyone? So, again, what is Ron Paul’s plan to secure our borders?

The fact of the matter is that terrorist cells, by definition, don't even need a "stronghold". Terrorism also doesn't behave like a traditional enemy. They are radicals, remember? If we kill one, two more take his place, and this is exactly what's been happening. The longer we stay over there, the more their numbers grow. Hell, terrorism wasn't even a major problem in Iraq until we decided to invade, thus illustrating my point. In a nutshell, this is what Ron Paul wants to do with our borders: physical security measures, no amnesty for illegals, no welfare for illegals, no birthright citizenship. I could take time explaining more, but it's really better if you read for yourself (i.e. don't take my word for it).

I never stated that the Muslims started the holy wars—did I? Regardless of who started it, there are and have always been very radical Muslims who truly believe that they should annihilate Christians--Americans. That in my opinion will never change.

Be careful here. America is not a Christian nation. Never has been , never will be (here's hoping). We are a nation of very mixed religion, we have a little bit of everything, even Muslims. Yes, there will always be radicals who want to kill others based solely on religious beliefs, but that is true with any religion.

Please join in (and be polite)!

[Guns4Fun]

lexington86

I have been at home in bed with a bout of the flu. I just felt well enough to get out of bed and check my emails.

You make some valid points---when the fog in my head clears, i'll make some replies to you comments.

[Morel42]

Bravo!

The founding fathers warned us about intangling alliances.. For starters it surrenders some of our sovereignty.

Add the fact that I always think Israel has the same attitude as the little kid on the playground that has a huge brother.. So the little pipsqueak acts big and bad, since his brother will protect him..

[lexington86]

Bravo!

The founding fathers warned us about intangling alliances.. For starters it surrenders some of our sovereignty.

Add the fact that I always think Israel has the same attitude as the little kid on the playground that has a huge brother.. So the little pipsqueak acts big and bad, since his brother will protect him..

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
~Thomas Jefferson

[Guns4Fun]

Okay, feeling a little better this morning.

Again, as far as the 9/11 report and guys like Michael Scheuer, I’m not so sure I’d call them experts. Have we caught Bin Laden yet? Everyone has an agenda and just because their opinion supports yours does not make them right. I’m sure if I spent the time, I’d find 10 other people stating that his ideas are wrong and list another dozen “facts” to support their statements. I do not consider myself an expert (but I did stay at a holiday in express once). But, I do find things that have happened to me over the years to apply to life’s situations.

Here is one example:
In grade school (6th grade), there was this one bigger kid who was a big bully. He picked on everyone and made the smaller kids tremble when he entered the room, seriously, they’d go the other way just to avoid him. He didn’t pick on me too much because I wasn’t as small as the other kids. Well, one day at lunch, he decided that he was going to try to take my lunch from me. I had had enough of him by this point and agreed to meet him in the school yard after school to settle this once and for all. Well, needless to say, a fight went down. I did not beat him to a pulp nor did he beat me. But what did happen was all the other kids saw for the first time that someone could challenge him and not be beaten to a pulp. Well, pretty soon there were a lot of fights. Eventually, a few of the smaller kids got together as a group and seriously thumped his ass. Needless to say, after that, he wasn’t too much of a threat to anyone anymore. He went on to live a very humbled life through graduation.

The point to this analogy is that I consider the USA to be the bully and eventually, if we are not careful, someone will come along gang up on us and put us in our place. I know that that kinda supports your feelings of getting out of Iraq but here again is why I don’t feel that way. Now that we are there in Iraq (probably should not have been from the beginning though) we have to see it through or we will tell the rest of the world that we lack the conviction to see things through. It will let the rest of the world know that we are week and can not support our perceived military superiority. I find it somewhat amusing that you talk about Japan and ww2 and imply that we are not the same America today but then you say we should leave Iraq without achieving our goals. I do not understand that logic? America today is much different than the ww2 era America, that is for sure. I do believe the USA has been slowly turning into a bunch of pussies. As long as we have our special blended lattés, big SUV’s, and cable TV all is good. Could you imagine the backlash the media would have received if they ran their negative campaigns during ww2? Could you imagine how Americans today would perceive not one but 2 nukes being dropped in Iraq instead of Japan? You do realize that more American soldiers died during the first day of the battle in ww2 than have died in 5 years in Iraq? And yes, I do believe that we can restore order and end up with allies on our side. Like I said, it might take 20years but if we stand beside them, I feel it can be done.

I am aware that the dollar loosing value is part of the reason for the gas prices going up. I understand how that works. However, if these oil rich nations gang up on us and decide to break their 60 + year agreement and start selling their oil for euros or any other non US dollar that they could seriously cripple our economy. Unfortunately, in a global economy, we need to protect our interests. Again, it is a current fact of life that we, the USA have become a nation of consumers---not producers. In order for us to survive, we need to pay close attention to the world around us. While the Thomas Jefferson quote you provided sounds good “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto” I highly doubt Mr. Jefferson ever expected our trade deficit to be what it is today. Nor would he have ever expected us to relly so heavily on other countries to provide us our goods.


ETA--I just wanted to add that I watched the video link and read Ron Paul’s views on immigration. I do like his stand on no amnesty.

[Guns4Fun]

Bravo!

The founding fathers warned us about intangling alliances.. For starters it surrenders some of our sovereignty.

Add the fact that I always think Israel has the same attitude as the little kid on the playground that has a huge brother.. So the little pipsqueak acts big and bad, since his brother will protect him..

We have been surrendering our soveregnty ever sense we started to rely on other nations to provide us goods. The fact of the matter is that we consume more than we produce so, we will forever be indebted to other nations for our survival.

As for your Israel comments, i don't know---i have always liked how they have delt with things---if you f with us we are going to f you up. Maybe it is because they have us as big brother but i doubt it. You don't survive in that area for long if you let all the haters surronding them push you around.

[phillyd2]

Oh yeah, another Its All America's Fault thread.

Poor bastards, if only big bad American would let them live in peace.

[Guns4Fun]

Oh yeah, another Its All America's Fault thread.

Poor bastards, if only big bad American would let them live in peace.

Phillyd, I'm not sure who you were directing your comments to---but if it was me, i can assure you that i do not feel "It is All America's Fault". This discussion started in another thread where lexington86 stated that Ron Paul was the best candidate---i said i could not support any candidate who supported pulling out of Iraq before we accomplished our goals of a stable country. My analogy to being the bully was simple. We have to be the police for the world because we depend on the worlds goods for survival. We can not let any country perceive us to be week or without conviction--

[LastManOut]

Phillyd, I'm not sure who you were directing your comments to---but if it was me, i can assure you that i do not feel "It is All America's Fault". This discussion started in another thread where lexington86 stated that Ron Paul was the best candidate---i said i could not support any candidate who supported pulling out of Iraq before we accomplished our goals of a stable country. My analogy to being the bully was simple. We have to be the police for the world because we depend on the worlds goods for survival. We can not let any country perceive us to be week or without conviction--

The US could easily survive without one drop of ME oil. We have oil reserves, untapped sources, capped wells, trade with South America and Russia and if push came to shove, I believe we could transition off 50% of our oil dependency in a few months through conservation (brought about ONLY through a crisis) and alternate fuels/energy sources.

So, I'd respectfully suggest we bag the war for oil rhetoric and to sacrifice troops lives to save face... I find that abhorrent. If anyone truly believes that to be true, let them buy a ticket to Baghdad and pack you AR-15 to "save face".

[Guns4Fun]

The US could easily survive without one drop of ME oil. We have oil reserves, untapped sources, capped wells, trade with South America and Russia and if push came to shove, I believe we could transition off 50% of our oil dependency in a few months through conservation (brought about ONLY through a crisis) and alternate fuels/energy sources.

Sure, we have other options but none that are going to do anything but hurt our econemy. What is going to happen if gas is $5-6-10 a gal? We have to wait in line to get gas--we can only get gas on tuesdays and only 5 gal at a time--etc. I think that your 50% reduction in a few months is a pipe dream--can it be done? Sure but not that fast and not without economic down sides.

So, I'd respectfully suggest we bag the war for oil rhetoric and to sacrifice troops lives to save face... I find that abhorrent. If anyone truly believes that to be true, let them buy a ticket to Baghdad and pack you AR-15 to "save face".

I'd like to hear your opinion on why we are at war with Iraq---i'm sorry you find the thought abhorrent but why are we there? Do you think we would really give a shit about Iraq if they didn't have oil and wouldn't become a safe haven for terrorists? For me, it is even worse than war for oil, i think we went to war with iraq because bush 2 had an axe to grind with sadahm from the bush 1 carry over and bush 2 was looking for any reason to show them who was in control. Why do you think bush2 ignored the un and did what he wanted? Even though the rest of the world wanted to try different things first. And hell, i'm a bush supporter not a bush hater that blames him for everything.

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