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
