Question about us leaving iraq

[Isupportronpaul]

If Ron Paul became President and we left Iraq. How would we protect ourself from future attacks? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

 

[CUnknown]

It's not a stupid question, but I think there are some assumptions you have that prevent you from realizing the answer yourself.

Bush would have us believe that we are protecting America by being in Iraq. We're fighting Al Qaeda, right? If we leave, they'll follow us home. Fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here! I think these are some of the assumptions that you have, maybe without realizing it.

1. We aren't protecting America by being in Iraq.

a. The US military is being bogged down in a no-win police action. The longer we stay in Iraq, the weaker our military gets. We lose lives (by enemy fire or by PTSD and suicide). We damage our equipment. We lower our solider's morale and reduce recruitment. Any retired general will tell you this. The ones who aren't retired value their jobs, so they don't speak out.​

b. A recent report (sorry I don't have a link) has rated America as not being ready to face an attack on our soil. Maybe it's because all our soliders are half-way across the world?​

c. Our borders are as porous as ever, terrorists can easily slip through. The only real way to protect America is to guard our borders and ports more carefully. It takes a lot of luck for terrorists to pull off an attack like 9/11 -- they can't just do that every year. But, to me anyway, the odds of another 9/11 are greater if we're in Iraq than if we just focused on protecting ourselves.​

2. In Iraq, we're not fighting the same Al Qaeda that did 9/11.

a. We are currently fighting "Al Qaeda in Iraq," which is different from the Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. A totally different organization with the same name. I'm sure they communicate with Bin Laudin and those guys, but they don't take orders from them. They just liked the name and wanted to use it.​

b. Most of the attacks on US soldiers does not come from "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Most of the attacks come from angry Iraqis (Sunnis or Shia) who also detest Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda only has maybe a couple thousand guys in Iraq, they are not a big problem there, compared to the insurgency.​

3. "If we leave, they'll follow us home."

They're trying to hit us at home anyway. While the "they'll follow us home" idea may be somewhat true, it's only because we're not providing them with easy American targets anymore by being over there. They have a much easier time killing Americans if we travel across the world to meet them than if they were forced to make the journey here and had to pass through our border security and checkpoints to enter the country. Admittedly, our border security is crap, but it's better than nothing.
In Iraq, they set off a roadside bomb and they get away to bomb another day. It's almost impossible to catch them. If they did the same thing here, our police would be on their trail, and they wouldn't have a large population of arabs to blend into and be protected by. We'd catch them.​

4. Us fighting them "over there" makes them want to fight us "over here" more

Al Qaeda has had a much easier time recruiting than we have, ever since we attacked Iraq. The arab moderates didn't like the extreme, violent Al Qaeda organization so much before. But every time we bomb a house, killing all the family members but the 16 year old boy who was outside at the time, Al Qaeda gains a new recruit who will be suicide bombing us next month. Every time a suicide bomb goes off, potential army recuits back in the states hesitate before they sign up ("Am I going to die if I sign up?). It's a downward spiral.​

Ron Paul would protect America. He would come home from Iraq and focus on our defense here. He would give back soverienty to the Iraqis and stop helping Al Qaeda recruit. He would withdraw aid from Israel, making arabs happy all across the middle east. He would stop having military bases in their holy land. They wouldn't have much reason to attack us anymore, and Al Qaeda's goal of starting a holy war to purge the middle east of our presence would be made impossible (we'd be gone already! heh).

That's what Ron Paul would do to protect America. He is the only one who would do what is necessary to protect our country.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Here is a whole website for you:

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[Zarxrax]

Also, Ron Paul has an entire book dedicated to things like this, which you might find to be worth reading: http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy-Freedom-Commerce-Friendship/dp/0912453001

 

[raystone]

Cunknown, here's the link for 2a

http://www.everyzing.com/viewMedia....=en-all-public-ep&channel=90&res=0&e=17972627

 

[Fudwamper]

The one thing that Cunkown left out was the strategy for hunting down the terrorists responsible for 9-11.

Ron Paul would make Letters of Marque.
What this does is places a bounty on certain individuals heads. Osama as an example. Yes there is a reward for information that leads to his arrest. But a Letter of Marque grants any US citizens the right to hunt them down for ourselves. When killed or captured that citizen gets the reward and has the right to keep all or a percentage of his belongings.

This works better than a military because we are not built to fight small units independently. We are also regulated to where are military can go. That is why we could not chase Al Qeada into Pakistan.

 

[Zippyjuan]

While we did not respect the border with Iraq, we do respect the border with Pakistan- as we hope other countries will respect our border. That is why we did not go into Pakistan- although the military commanders would love to since it has become a haven for the radicals fighting in Afghanistan.

 

[ChickenHawk]

The war in Iraq is part of an enormous struggle that is going on between the worlds major civilizations to corner a major chunk of the remaining oil reserves. The people in power know that oil will soon go into irreversible decline and whoever controls it will control the world. Most people in this country would rather not have Russia or China in that position. Terrorism really is not a major reason the US invaded Iraq.

 

[therealjjj77]

We are effectively achieving the goals of Osama bin Laden. Why do we need to continue like the Soviets did, and bankrupt ourselves chasing mice with tanks?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

 

[CUnknown]

Chickenhawk, I fear you are correct when you say "whoever controls it [oil] will control the world". Do you view this as a good reason to continue the war in Iraq, though? Of course on the one hand, it's a horrible, despicable reason, but on the other hand, do we really want some other country to be controlling the oil supply?

It just sounded like you approved of the war for a second there... I'm not trying to attack you, but just saying, is that what you meant? Would the US still be "okay" when the oil goes into decline, if, say Russia or Iran, is the one occupying Iraq instead of us? Of course libertarian principles would say, "It's not our oil, we have no right to be there." The future sure is scary though.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

If Ron Paul became President and we left Iraq. How would we protect ourself from future attacks? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

Your premise is that the United States is helpless or defenseless if it does not have troops in other countries, and this is a false premise.

Ron Paul is not saying, and never has said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What Paul and people like myself are saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

Why do they hate us?

The answer is here.

As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not making a point to attack anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

 

[ChickenHawk]

Chickenhawk, I fear you are correct when you say "whoever controls it [oil] will control the world". Do you view this as a good reason to continue the war in Iraq, though? Of course on the one hand, it's a horrible, despicable reason, but on the other hand, do we really want some other country to be controlling the oil supply?

It just sounded like you approved of the war for a second there... I'm not trying to attack you, but just saying, is that what you meant? Would the US still be "okay" when the oil goes into decline, if, say Russia or Iran, is the one occupying Iraq instead of us? Of course libertarian principles would say, "It's not our oil, we have no right to be there." The future sure is scary though.

I did support the Iraq war for a number of reasons, none of which the Bush administration talked about. I do think the war is over and we won so we aught to bring the troops home.

I think that people who say "no blood for oil" really have no idea what that would mean for the world. Because of the realities of the world today if you aren't willing to fight for oil you really aren't willing to fight for freedom. This is a very unfortunate position to be in but it is the position we are in until we can break our dependence on foreign oil.

 

[Elegy]

b. Most of the attacks on US soldiers does not come from "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Most of the attacks come from angry Iraqis (Sunnis or Shia) who also detest Al Qaeda.

Where are you getting this information? That must go for every region other than the Dilaya province, because the people we are catching are foreigners. I'm not going to go into detail because of OPSEC. That being said, my reason for wanting to leave is for monetary reasons, to steal RP's words, we just can't afford this. They are planning on keeping our presence in Iraq for a long, long time, if you could only see the money being spent here, you'd be shocked.

 

[JK/SEA]

Where are you getting this information? That must go for every region other than the Dilaya province, because the people we are catching are foreigners. I'm not going to go into detail because of OPSEC. That being said, my reason for wanting to leave is for monetary reasons, to steal RP's words, we just can't afford this. They are planning on keeping our presence in Iraq for a long, long time, if you could only see the money being spent here, you'd be shocked.

I agree. This whole mess is so convulated, which is why we need to just get the hell out.

Everyday its something else. I don't who to believe or trust on this issue. Seems our framers had it right about staying out of other country's business.

Works for me.

 

[fisharmor]

I agree. This whole mess is so convulated, which is why we need to just get the hell out.

I really turned around on the war when my friend in the Army was home for Christmas, and explained that he was over there killing Sunnis because if they left, the Shiites would kill the Sunnis. I typed that correctly: that is precisely what it boiled down to.

The people in power know that oil will soon go into irreversible decline and whoever controls it will control the world.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,766717,00.html

Typical is the situation with ersatz motor fuel. Most of the synthetic gasoline made from coal

Please note the date on the article: 30 November, 1942.

I've heard quotes that state that Pennsylvania alone could power all of our cars for 500 years. There's been an underground coal fire in Centralia, PA burning for the last 46 years.
http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm

That's not even discussing ANWR.

The only reason the middle east means anything to us economically is because we want it to.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I've heard quotes that state that Pennsylvania alone could power all of our cars for 500 years. There's been an underground coal fire in Centralia, PA burning for the last 46 years.
http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm

That's not even discussing ANWR.

The only reason the middle east means anything to us economically is because we want it to.

Here in Washington State we have huge amounts of coal. The last underground coal mine was closed in 1974 because it wasn't profitable to mine it any more. The reason we choose to use middle east oil is because it is cheaper than domestic energy sources. Unfortunately the war costs are rarely factored into the equation. It is imperative to the security of this country to end our dependence on foreign oil.

 

[CUnknown]

b. Most of the attacks on US soldiers does not come from "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Most of the attacks come from angry Iraqis (Sunnis or Shia) who also detest Al Qaeda.

Where are you getting this information? That must go for every region other than the Dilaya province, because the people we are catching are foreigners. I'm not going to go into detail because of OPSEC. That being said, my reason for wanting to leave is for monetary reasons, to steal RP's words, we just can't afford this. They are planning on keeping our presence in Iraq for a long, long time, if you could only see the money being spent here, you'd be shocked.

This is my impression from the reading and internet browsing I've been doing. I'm sure it varys by province... if you are over there right now or are a vet, your words carry a little more weight than mine! I basically don't know where I got that information. But, I just did a little digging:

On the Wikipedia entry for "Iraqi insurgency", it says this (among other things):

In 2005, the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded that foreign fighters accounted for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents and argued that the US and Iraqi Governments were "feeding the myth" that they comprised the backbone of the insurgency.

The wikipedia entry is pretty good, it lists all the groups in detail.

 

[nobody's_hero]

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

That is a very powerful quote. I thank you for sharing it with us.

I have grown tired of seeing our brave men and women sent back to Iraq for a 4th tour of duty, or perhaps more. I do not support the war in Iraq enough to go to my local recruiter's office and sign on the dotted line knowing that I will be sent into a country where the people there are not truly committed to wanting any other form of government than what Saddamn offered them. How can I ask someone else to go back 4 times or more because others won't?

I can't. So I vote to bring them out. We have asked so much of our troops already.

 

[fisharmor]

I just talked to my sister-in-law about voting on Tuesday. She's looking into Dr. Paul, and I forewarned her about his Iraq stance.
She said, "I don't think we should stay, but I don't want all those soldiers to have died for nothing."
I said, "I agree. But if VietNam taught us anything, it's that killing more isn't the answer."

 

[Knightskye]

We'd prevent "future attacks" by removing the incentive. Ever hear of "blowback"? The CIA has. Think of Iraq as oil (no pun intended ) and our military presence as a match. No match, no fire.

"We protected Seoul, Korea better on 9/11 than we did Washington, D.C." - Ron Paul