I'm really not understanding at all the interventionist stance on Foreign Policy. I like to take a logical and rational look at things but I don't see any of those in this stance. For example and I'm going to use RP since he is who I most align with. P1 - We occupy other countries with our military P2 - They don't like that C - They attack us P1 - If another country occupied the USA with their military P2 - We wouldn't like that C - We would attack them It's irrational to think these people attack us because we are free or we have money. There has to be a cause and effect. You must think to the reasons why they don't like us. And then you have to put yourself in their shoes and think what you would do if you were them. This whole thought that we need to stop countries from getting nuclear weapons yet give money to help other countries that already have nuclear weapons. What type of message do we send? Not to mention we have nuclear weapons. This country is suppose to be about freedom and peace. Most of us are ignorant to the fact that the majority of the world doesn't like us. And we question why they don't? Just look at our actions. And yes you could say but we do so much good around the world. And yes we do. But you and I both know that bad press goes much further than good press.
What countries are we occupying without the permission of their government? Cuba. Who else? This notion that we were attacked on 9/11 because we had a military base in Saudi Arabia is nuts, and so is anyone who thinks that. This problem with islamic radicals is much deeper than that.
Wow I really like your logic- or lack of. OK let me elaborate a bit more. So by your reasoning we were attacked by some group of radicals that have a hate for us that lies deeper than what we can imagine? Therefore there is no cause/effect? Now by that line of reasoning wouldn't it be easy to say that no matter what we do we are f'cked ?
Our history, and the history of the west, in the middle east, is less than sparkling. If Islamic countries were to abuse us the way we've abused them I think quite a few US folk would hold a grudge. Particularly if a significant portion of the US folk were uneducated and were subjected to propoganda on a regular basis. We hear that our base in Saudi Arabia is an insult to the Islamic religion in the eyes of some, but I think the related strife is also representative of many years of flawed intervention in the Middle East by the US and other western countries. I think if you research our actions in the middle east, you find a great many mistakes and a great many things that probably don't square with the morals of most US citizens. Still, none of that excuses 9/11, and Paul was fully on board for punishing Al-Queda. Islamic extremists are bad, but our actions irritate moderate Muslims as well. We have not treated them respectfully over the years and to think we can treat people any way and not cause issues is foolish and, frankly, un-American.
Here is your logic: Again I'll ask, who were we occupying before 9/11? Using your logic, if we had a foreign military base on U.S soil with the approval of the U.S. gov't that I didn't like, I should go kill 3,000 civilians in their country. Got it.
We are their because Saudi Arabia government wants us there. They want our protection. Whatever problems these idiots have should be with their government, not us. He blames the 9/11 attacks on the U.S foreign policy. He said it again last night. Name one country who has done more for other countries than the U.S. We aren't perfect, but to think there is a better country out there is crazy. You think you could worship freely as a christian in a muslim country? Do we punish women who are raped because she was with another man? Yeah, the U.S. is horrible and we treat muslims poorly.:rolleye33:
He partially blames US foreign policy, as does the CIA. He doesn't say that because US foreign policy was flawed, Muslim terrorists have the right to kill 3000 Americans. All that the man is saying is that the US government has done quite a few things in the Middle East that a majority of US citizens would condemn. These things have caused irritation, and the terrorists site many of these actions as part of the reason for their terrorism. Sure, it goes much deeper than US bases in Saudi Arabia, but we were not attacked on 9/11/2001 simply because the terrorists hate American values. If we could erase all the wrong that we've done and keep to ourselves there would probably still be fringe elements that would blame us for this or that. That is the way of the world and Ron Paul isn't so niave to believe otherwise. But for you to say that our poor handling of many aspects of our relationship with the Middle East has no bearing on whether more or less people in that region don't respect us, I'd say you're the naive one unwilling to see the world as it truly is. The US is a great country. I never said it wasn't. We agree that the US isn't perfect, and on some issues I don't think it is unpatriotic to say that we've been wrong. Why does what Ron Paul says make you hear that? I think that you hear that should be a warning that you are unwilling to hear the merits of opposing points of view. You may be to mired in the current mainstream "republican" party.
First, we have not occupied a country since WWII. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan with the permission of their governments. Secondly, we are hated by radical Islamists because we are "infidels" who support Israel. Not because we are occupying their nations. In fact such radicals have no countries. No one will claim them. We were attacked by these fanatics long before we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently you have forgotten 9/11, the attack on the Cole, the attack on the African embassies and on the marines in Beruit. What did we do to justify these attacks other than being a force for justice and democracy in the world? Thirdly, no nation wanted Saadam or currently wants Iran to have nuclear weapons or any other WMD. Iran is a rogue nation; a loose cannon, and its possession of WMD would only serve to further destabilize a critical part of the world. The fact that the United States and other nations have nuclear weapons is really besides the point. We developed our nuclear force during a war and used it to end the war. That is a big difference from a radical nation developing nuclear weapons for the purpose of using them to increase their influence in a way that is not conducive to either peace, justice or stability in the Middle East. In addition, there is a legitmate fear that Iran could sell nuclear materials to terrorist groups.
I'm convinced we could do everything they want and they will still hate us and want to kill us. In fact, Clinton convinced Israel to give in to most of Arafat's demands and what did Arafat do? Yep, he backed out on the deal. These radicals, like an Arafat and Bin Laden, don't really want peace. They make excuses, like we have bases in their country, to justify their actions. But in the end, it's not about peace for the radicals, it's about the pure hatred they have towards Israel and the West. They won't be happy under any circumstances, even if we remove all their excuses. That's where I think Ron Paul has it all wrong. It's not the U.S. policy that is causing this as much as their own inept governments that have all this oil, but yet their people are poor. And they don't think twice about dishing out severe punishment for crazy things under islamic law and have no regard for human life. Bush's foreign policy has made it worse, but Paul's foreign policy would be disastrous. We need someone who isn't afraid to do what we needs to be done while convincing the rest of the world it is the right thing to do. This is where Bush has failed.
Ugh. Just go vote for McCain I can't listen to this iron fist approach any longer. Let's just all bomb each other up b/c it seems like the USA is now an objective power on life, religion, and morality.
