Is Ron Paul wrong about Jihadists and Foreign Policy?

[1000-points-of-fright]

Ron will be tough on terrorism if we get attacked. He just won't be looking for fights.

That's my problem the vagueness of just saying "I'm a non-interventionist". I don't want to be attacked. I want to try to prevent attacks. I think Ron Paul needs to clearly define what he is and is not willing to do for national security. It would go a long way to ease the concerns of the average American who is a-scared of those evil terrorists.

 

[klamath]

Only us as private citizens have a chance to to stop terrorism. Since 911 it has been the alert private citizen that has stopped further attacks. It has not been the "save us agencies" that has stopped the terrorists.

 

[LibertyBelle]

Quote from mikelovesgod: "You under-estimate them because mentally they are willing to risk everything because they have nothing to lose. Ever play sports? Who is the most dangerous opponent? The guy with no fear."

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

Sounds like the cabal in the White House and their partners in crime.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Ron Paul wants OBL dead. That is clear. He isnt soft on terrorism. Far from it. If anyone is soft on terrorism its the likes of Bush and all the Congressmen who let OBL go in order to fill their own pockets in Iraq.

On a side note. Iv only ever seen 1 video of OBL giving his reasons for hating the US/UK. In which he gave a story about a wolf , a baby lamb and the lambs mother, if i remember correctly. It went something like this :

The baby lamb is drinking from a stream, when the wolf comes up to him and accuses him of dirtying the water. So the wolf eats the baby lamb. The babies mother sees this and headbutts the wolf . Everyone turns around and says "did you see that! the lamb attacked the wolf!!!"

somethin like that anyway

What im sayin is ,from my experience, OBL's reasons are exactly what Ron Paul is saying. They dont hate us for our (diminishing)freedoms or how much (paper) money we have in our pockets ..but because we have been attacking , occupying and starving the ME for a long time.


EDIT: Heres the vid i was tryin to describe : http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...036&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

 

[Roxi]

The baby lamb is drinking from a stream, when the wolf comes up to him and accuses him of dirtying the water. So the wolf eats the baby lamb. The babies mother sees this and headbutts the wolf . Everyone turns around and says "did you see that! the lamb attacked the wolf!!!"

what this says to me is that iraq (or whoever) was minding thier own business and the US (the wolf) comes along and bombs the shit out of them for personal gain...the mother sheep (middle east) in response attacks the wolf, and the media and public assume the sheep attacked first

so RP is exactly right in what he said about the 9/11 attacks...he never said we deserved it, only that it wasn't a surprise attack for no reason

 

[klamath]

I am all for us cleaning up our foreign policy like Paul suggests however I think it is extremely detrimental to the campaign to make heroes out of the people that we have been at war with. Just because we are wrong doesn't mean they are right. Saddam was one evil SOB, as well as OBL. As horrible as Abu Ghraib was, that is the standard on the insurgent side. No country is the innocent victim. Let us concentrate on cleaning up OUR act without making heroes of other countries just because they are against us.

 

[JaylieWoW]

Bus Stuck in Tunnel

Anyone familiar with the Bus Stuck in the Tunnel story?

Basically it goes something like this...

Exceeding the maximum height, a bus gets stuck at the entrance of a tunnel. Experts in every applicable field mobilize heavy equipment but fail to remove the bus from the tunnel. A spectator (usually a small child in the versions of this story I've heard), suggests letting the air out of the tires in order to lower the bus just enough to remove it from the tunnel. Amazingly, (or maybe not very), it works.

Our foreign policy is much like that bus. The "experts" who couldn't see the simplicity of solving the problem are much like the ones who run our foreign policy today. It isn't about showing who is the biggest and the baddest, or for that matter the "rightest". However, by continuing to provide ample fodder for the radicals to use, we are in essence courting our own "bus" disaster.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Is there a large number of muslims who subscribe to the notion of "global jihad" and will continue to advocate violence against the West no matter what we do? Of course there are.

Is there a large number of muslims who despise Western "decadence" and the fact that we push it on the rest of the world? Of course there are. (Heck, I know many Westerners who aren't too happy about it.)

But if we do what Ron Paul is saying and establish a noninterventionist foreign policy, we will complete destroy the number one propaganda weapon of these jihadists, the idea that they are justified in attacking us because we are occupying their lands and meddling in their affairs.

Right now, much of Europe -- especially western Europe -- has its own problems with radical Islam. Yet we receive little sympathy from them when it comes to our problems with radical Islam. The rest of the Western world, with a few exceptions like Australia and Britain, have distanced themselves from us when it comes to such matters. We must ask ourselves why.

The answer is that everyone else in the world but us seems able to see that we have indeed been poking the muslim hornet nest with a stick for a long, long time; therefore, they don't feel too sorry for us when we get stung. But if we implement the Foreign Policy of Freedom and establish a doctrine of non-intervention, I maintain that we will see the pendulum of global opinion swing back toward our favor.

By removing the jihadists' prime propaganda weapon, our interference in their countries, all they will have left in their propaganda arsenal are exhortations to proselytize unbelievers and attacks on our decadence. Then perhaps the slogan "they just hate us for our Freedom" might have some validity. The rest of the world might be somewhat sympathetic to them as long as we're fighting Islam militarily, but I don't think they will stand for Islam attacking the West when the West is not antagonizing them.

 

[tsoldrin]

Have any of you actually even met a muslim ever? Here's a simple fact: If we weren't screwing with them continually, the extremists wouldn't even have a hold of their OWN countries. The majority of these folks don't want a worldwide caliphate, they just want to be left alone! What we've done with our wrongheaded policies is elevate what is basically their equivalent of lunatic street prophets into positions of leadership - because we're making their crazy rantings come true!

The far superior method of extering influence on the world is financially. We're an economic juggernaught and there'd be no stopping us on that front.

 

[angelatc]

There is a reason they don't attack China, because China won't play nice. China would nuke them to Hell and they know it. They attack those people who use democracy, and have openly said so.

They have been tussling with China in Africa, over oil. To me, the geographic argument makes the most sense. China and Russia are far closer targets if they're bent on wiping out all the entire non-Islamic world.

 

[Gigaplex]

There are of course many reasons that they join these groups. I happen to think it is a two part process. First they get very angry about our foreign policy. They probably have some loved ones that are killed by US soldiers for no good reason. In that kind of extreme emotional pain, a person will typically turn to religion for comfort and guidence. The extreme form of the religion resonates with some in that kind of turmoil and now you have a double whammy.

So they might be going out and doing terrorism for their religion but you gotta look at what put them in the state of mind to accept that extreme form of the religion.

 

[smtwngrl]

There have been a lot of thoughtful answers to this question. I would just like to add this.

Ron Paul is a wise man. And anyone who hears him speak knows he is very knowledgeable about economics, history and foreign policy. Not only that, but if he is elected, he will surround himself with people who are knowledgeable. And on areas that he is not as knowledgeable, he is open to gaining more knowledge.

Right now, I am reading "Imperial Hubris: Why The West Is Losing the War on Terror" by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA (who retired in 2004). It is packed with information. Even if someone read up to page 20, he could learn a lot.

This book is one of the ones Ron Paul recommended to Giuliani. After having read only part of it (so far), I believe it's a book that should be read by anyone who aspires to become president. But since Giuliani is unlikely to benefit from his assigned books, I think they are there for *us*.

Remember, in the days of the founding fathers, how educated the average person was? The Federalist Papers were written to be understandable to the average citizen (living then).

Also, on June 15, Ron Paul had a rally in Kansas City. In the question and answer time, someone asked what we could do for him, besides donating our money/time. He said the best thing we could do is to educate ourselves, so that when questions came up, we would be able to answer them convincingly.

 

[klamath]

Thought Europe may have been right on Iraq their hands are as bloody as ours. As a vereran of the Iraq war I can tell you that most all of Saddam's weapon are Russian, French, or Italian made.