President Ron Paul's foreign policy - analysis and implications

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think for the money we've spent doing next to nothing in Iraq we could've rebuilt the entire K-12 education system in America and hired some well-paid, well-educated, teachers.

[/ QUOTE ]

New here? Hold on tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, amen.

Gotta say I agree with Kaj though about fully here. I do question moral responsibility in letting people live under tyrants and evil dictators. For me this has always been a moral dilemma, which is why I might like to see an Iraqi vote taken, if they want us to stay, we stay, if not we go and use the money to help us, instead of them - in this case, and I firmly believe they'd vote for us to leave, I feel the moral responsibility is gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you're not employing tyranny in the form of taxation to fight this tyranny, you can feel morally responsible all you like. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Taso]

I don't believe that would be the case if the Iraqi's decided they want us to stay. Tyranny is one ruler holding all the power. In this country, the people elect representatives, and as a group these representatives vote on taxation - there isn't anything tyranical about it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that would be the case if the Iraqi's decided they want us to stay. Tyranny is one ruler holding all the power. In this country, the people elect representatives, and as a group these representatives vote on taxation - there isn't anything tyranical about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

tyr·an·ny /ˈtɪrəni/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tir-uh-nee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

[lehighguy]

Would people stop hating America?

No

Is what we are doing now making us safer?

No

Would Paul's policies make us safer?

Probably

Can you ever be 100% safe?

No

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Would people stop hating America?

No


[/ QUOTE ]

Errr... of course the proposed foreign policy would result in some people ending their hatred of America.

[dazraf69]

[ QUOTE ]
Will that stop terrorism? No. Will it make the Anti-American terrorists' cause harder to sell to new recruits? You bet. Why would they die for a cause that doesn't even affect them or those around them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point that I wanted to re-iterate. Imagine how easy it is to sell "revenge", a term I like using better than terrorism, to a boy whose only knowledge of USA, is the label on the bomb that found its way into his parents home while they slept.

But if media used the term "revenge" much like Ron Paul's use of the term "Backlash", this "War On Terror" would be a hard sell to the American public from the start. I'm for any politician that can take the target off the heads of middle easterners, foreign or domestic. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
But if media used the term "revenge" much like Ron Paul's use of the term "Backlash", this "War On Terror" would be a hard sell to the American public from the start.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we, the American people, do not make mistakes, so how could we be in line for revenge.

Cody

[theseus51]

When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they were attacked. But when they left in the 80s, did Muslims follow them back to Russia and attack? No. They were left alone. The Afghani's were pissed, probably still are, but they didn't want the Russians to come back and decided to just put the whole matter behind them.

US Troops in the region has been a huge recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thanks to our demented foreign policy, here are more Muslim terrorists now than ever, and we are more at risk than ever. It has everything to do with our foreign policy. They don't attack the "rich and free" countries nearby, who have the "wrong religion". The whole area has Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and lots of Democracy.

But who do they pick on most? The people who have thousands of foreign troops occupying their holy land. It's like if China set up bases in the United States, and brought thousands of troops to "spread the goodness of the Chinese system". You can be sure as hell we'd be causing "terrorism" to them.

Then Chinese politicians will be debating if they should send in more troops, or maybe attack Canada too, to bring more goodwill. The Chinese will wonder why they are being attacked, when they are just trying to spread goodness. Meanwhile all the Americans will have one thing on their minds, "GET THE **** OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!". Once they leave, we'll be pissed, but with them gone, we wouldn't need to attack them anymore. Plus we don't want them back, we'd just want to get on with our lives again.

Ron Paul FTW
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they were attacked. But when they left in the 80s, did Muslims follow them back to Russia and attack? No. They were left alone. The Afghani's were pissed, probably still are, but they didn't want the Russians to come back and decided to just put the whole matter behind them. <font color="red"> yes, in a war of state vs state </font>

US Troops in the region has been a huge recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. <font color="red"> unsupportable claim </font> Thanks to our demented foreign policy, here are more Muslim terrorists now than ever,<font color="red"> unsupportable claim </font> and we are more at risk than ever.<font color="red"> unsupportable claim </font> It has everything to do with our foreign policy. They don't attack the "rich and free" countries nearby, who have the "wrong religion". <font color="red"> ORLY? I guess the lied when they said that. I guess bin Laden lied earlier this week when he said that the end to the war on terror would only happen when we convert. </font> The whole area has Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, <font color="red">and they are discriminated against by fundamental muslims </font> and lots of Democracy. <font color="red">orly? </font>

But who do they pick on most? The people who have thousands of foreign troops occupying their holy land. It's like if China set up bases in the United States, and brought thousands of troops to "spread the goodness of the Chinese system". You can be sure as hell we'd be causing "terrorism" to them.

Then Chinese politicians will be debating if they should send in more troops, or maybe attack Canada too, to bring more goodwill. The Chinese will wonder why they are being attacked, when they are just trying to spread goodness. Meanwhile all the Americans will have one thing on their minds, "GET THE **** OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!". Once they leave, we'll be pissed, but with them gone, we wouldn't need to attack them anymore. Plus we don't want them back, we'd just want to get on with our lives again. <font color="red"> an irrelevant analogy that ignores the nature of terrorism vs wars between states</font>

Ron Paul FTW
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul, AWAYCG