"Troops are fighting [in the Middle East] to protect our rights."

[RileyE104]

I know how to oppose this position in my mind, but I'm having some trouble putting it in words..

I was wondering if someone could explain the rebuttal in more detail for me..

 

[MRoCkEd]

Which rights would we lose if we weren't fighting there?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

oh, thats a crock. haha

 

[RileyE104]

Which rights would we lose if we weren't fighting there?

Well, she apparently believes that if our troops were not in the Middle East, we "would not be here" and "Al Qaeda would be over here" ...

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Well, she apparently believes that if our troops were not in the Middle East, we "would not be here" and "Al Qaeda would be over here" ...

Ask her to cite evidence of that. Its just baseless propaganda fed to the masses by douchebags at the top who know how to manipulate people who can't think for themselves and never do any reading of their own.

I was wondering if someone could explain the rebuttal in more detail for me..

Dude you don't really have to let her put you on the defensive in the first place.
And even if you take that route, its probably a waste of time to recite some long history of US interventionism in the region. I've read about such things myself but I don't memorize the details by heart. Its most likely she has no reason to believe the things she does on the issue, its just a combination of emotion, propaganda, and other things. Its very easy to demonize some distant enemy you know nothing about, who you know only through the accounts of the hysterical MSM, when you are oblivious to the greater context of things, etc

I guess one place to start is to show her transcripts of Al Qaeda video tapes, then you could look up the CIA guy Michael Scheuer who has some pretty knowledgeable things to say about the middle east and blow back. And if you are feeling sporty point out the government is doing an excellent job on its own of taking away our rights, and often can be described as terrorists themselves.

 

[RileyE104]

Dude you don't really have to let her put you on the defensive in the first place.
And even if you take that route, its probably a waste of time to recite some long history of US interventionism in the region. I've read about such things myself but I don't memorize the details by heart. Its most likely she has no reason to believe the things she does on the issue, its just a combination of emotion, propaganda, and other things. Its very easy to demonize some distant enemy you know nothing about, who you know through the accounts of the hysterical MSM, when you are oblivious to the greater context of things, etc

I know what you're saying.. I just got a little worked up because I wasn't expecting to hear this in the class room today. She gave a persuasive speech about the troops and stuff and for some reason started rambling on about Al Qaeda and terrorism and stuff..

So I automatically felt like changing my topic to an argument against what she said.

I present on Friday..
I was originally just gonna do mine against Prohibition and the War on Drugs but now I'm just not sure.. lol

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I know what you're saying.. I just got a little worked up because I wasn't expecting to hear this in the class room today. She gave a persuasive speech about the troops and stuff and for some reason started rambling on about Al Qaeda and terrorism and stuff..

So I automatically felt like changing my topic to an argument against what she said.

I present on Friday..
I was originally just gonna do mine against Prohibition and the War on Drugs but now I'm just not sure.. lol

Oh this was in a high school class on government/history or something?

Public school teachers are retarded, especially ones who teach/specialize in the subject of politics (bullshit). You won't be able to convert her from her religion of jingoist statism. If you are doing a presentation for the class I would recommend focusing on swaying the rest of the classroom and disregard her. Upon doing some research you can easily come off as the more objective and reasonable side of the issue, in comparison to her more jingoist emotions on the matter.

I could go look up a bunch of shit for you but I'm just going to throw some stuff out there to give you ideas:

-you could highlight how in the past the CIA armed the Taliban to fight against the Soviet Union invaders, and at that point in time the US would have considered them freedom fighters.
-if they hate us for our freedoms how come they didn't start attacking us a long time ago when we more free as a nation and less imperialistic?
-how would we feel if a foreign country invaded the United States in order to meddle with our affairs?
-don't make it sound like you are emphasizing with them or siding with them, describe your approach as the kind the police/fbi would take to figuring out the motives/mindset of a killer.
-point out that if this were all about 9/11, our activity in the region would have been limited to searching for and destroying those directly responsible. Instead they are engaging in all this nation building bull shit and losing sight of bringing those directly responsible to justice.

The drug war is always a good topic if a bit cliche, and there is an army of arguments against it.

 

[Reason]

Foreign Policy, Welfare, and 9/11 (page 245)

"The tragedy of 9/11 and its aftermath dramatize so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life.

Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world.

The Japanese are tired of us. The South Koreans are tired of us. The Europeans are tired of us. The Central Americans are tired of us. The Filipinos are tired of us. And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward.

The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.

There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re rich and free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.

Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it at face value. And the administration gets the political cover it needs to pursue a “holy” war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on the Congress and the administration? No, all we ever hear are reassurances that the majority supports the President; therefore it must be all right.

The terrorists’ attacks on us, though never justified, are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about any impending attack but too cumbersome to do anything about it.

Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize through our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

But what has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the federal government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well-behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world.

There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.

Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only move us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy, about which Madison and others had warned.

Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justifications of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows.

Can one imagine what it might be like if a true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a worldwide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous western countries.

How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we’re working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I’m optimistic that this Utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved.

This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under Soviet Communism.

We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress."

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Polic...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242861810&sr=8-1

 

[RileyE104]

Thanks, I've decided to kind of layer my speech with different topics..!

This will be included.

 

[dannno]

Might want to mention all the rights we've LOST due to this 'threat'..

Also there is a book someone here referenced that says 95% of all of the terrorist attacks in the last 30 years or something were all due to occupations (I can't find it.. hopefully someone will bring up the ref for you). How is occupying other countries decreasing terrorism if that is the reason for most acts of terrorism?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I would suggest showing a small segment of the movie "Gettysburg".

Two confederate soldiers have been captured by a union unit. They say they are "Fightin' for our raights"

Although the movie is very pro-fed, and doesn't really explain that those poor confederates really are fighting for their rights, the sheeple will see that

"just because you think you're fighting for your rights, doesn't mean you really are."

 

[Toureg89]

Well, she apparently believes that if our troops were not in the Middle East, we "would not be here" and "Al Qaeda would be over here" ...

and that's why we have a second amendment. to protect against tyrrants.

oh wait! we dont have a second amendment!

in fact, we have the biggest military in the world to "protect us", and a lot of americans arent even allowed the best means to protect themselves when they step on campus, or on an airplane, or in some of our cities.

 

[Fiscal Conservative]

The more we occupy, the more we're giving these terrorists an incentive to come and attack us. So, in other words, the more security we spend on, the more civil liberties are taken away by an agenda filled with propaganda.

 

[johnrocks]

Well, she apparently believes that if our troops were not in the Middle East, we "would not be here" and "Al Qaeda would be over here" ...

What would be here is the billions we've wasted over there and the men and women killed over there. Just think of the wealth that we have transferred abroad since the end of WWll due to foreign aid and useless military engagements from Korea to now.

 

[Fiscal Conservative]

What would be here is the billions we've wasted over there and the men and women killed over there. Just think of the wealth that we have transferred abroad since the end of WWll due to foreign aid and useless military engagements from Korea to now.

A lot of it has to do with 'reinforcing U.N. resolution' too. Pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation like Iraq was totally illegal. You don't goto war without a decalaration, plain and simple. We spend billions of dollars towards are nation's security but yet we're spending more igniting the terrorism by sticking around in the Middle East.

How do you like the 'multi-billion dollar job program' over in Iraq, that the American taxpayer funds for? The Fed collects our tax revenue, throws it towards bombs, the bombs fall on bridges, and more taxes go towards fixing the bridges. 'Nation-building' has a huge price, as George W. Bush once said during the 2000 presidential candidate debates. Kinda' funny, huh?

 

[bobbyw24]

The Troops Protect Our Freedom, and Other Lies I Learned in School

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=223971

 

[johnrocks]

A lot of it has to do with 'reinforcing U.N. resolution' too. Pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation like Iraq was totally illegal. You don't goto war without a decalaration, plain and simple. We spend billions of dollars towards are nation's security but yet we're spending more igniting the terrorism by sticking around in the Middle East.

How do you like the 'multi-billion dollar job program' over in Iraq, that the American taxpayer funds for? The Fed collects our tax revenue, throws it towards bombs, the bombs fall on bridges, and more taxes go towards fixing the bridges. 'Nation-building' has a huge price, as George W. Bush once said during the 2000 presidential candidate debates. Kinda' funny, huh?

Your so right FC, makes my blood boil Welcome to the forum btw.

 

[Fiscal Conservative]

Your so right FC, makes my blood boil Welcome to the forum btw.

I feel ya. Thankyou, I'm enjoying it.

 

[Captain Shays]

No terrorist or foreign enemy has EVER taken away ANY of our rights. ONLY our own government has done that and I challenge ANYONE to contradict me on that.
Further. Most of the people who attempt to make the same case our politicians do relative to our involvement in the Middle East-that we are protecting "vital American interests" ignore vital facts I challenge ANYONE to give me ONE reason other than oil for our 70 year + constant military presence in that region of the world. What are those vital American interests other than oil? I don't ask for three reasons, just one.
Then they usually attempt to make a case that without Arab oil we would revert back to the horse and buggy or something. I just have to remind them that necessity is the mother of all invention and this is the country that invented the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the VCR the TV, the radio, we split the atom and, over 40 years ago we put a man on the moon. I totally reject the idea that without Arab oil we will revert back to the horse and buggy.

But then it opens up a discussion about free market capitalism and I make a case that our military involvement is one of the main reasons why we are still dependent on Arab oil. Why? Because we the taxpayer foot the bill for the military. ( I know it doesn't really because of tariffs, duties and borrowing but, for argument's sake...) In other words, we pay twice for gas and oil. Once at the pump and again through our income tax which cloaks the real cost of oil. Our govt also gives HUGE tax breaks, subsidies and grants to oil and auto cartels (corporate welfare). Our govt is also a guaranteed customer of the products of oil and auto cartels ESPECIALLY for military engagements.These practices are the antithesis of free market capitalism. No doubt all of this is a quid pro quo and follows directly or indirectly the campaign contributions. I have no problem with any amount of contributions although I find it legalized bribery. What I have a problem with, is our elected representatives selling out in the way of legislation, no bid contracts, grants and other corporate welfare and artificial government support mechanisms that are NOT allowed in our Constitution anyway. My take, is that if the politicians had nothing to sell, the oil-auto cartels would have nothing to buy.

So if we follow their argument through and we removed our military involvement in oil producing regions of the world and allowed the oil companies to fend for themselves instead of using our sons and daughters to protect their corporate oil profits eventually some pan-Arab maniac may come to the front or some terrorist group will take over the oil fields and cut off supplies or dramatically cause an increase in oil prices which will tumble our economy into a negative tailspin which would be economic suicide on their part anyway because we're their biggest customer, which bolsters my argument even more. It would also deprive them of the revenue they need ( the money we spend at the gas pump which is used to build weapons with which to kill us with). We'll see odd-even rationing days at the pumps. Systemic unemployment. Social and political unrest. Old ladies might even freeze to death. All their fears being manifest right? But isn't that the necessity that will bring back invention? Yes! We'll see all the inventors, innovators, back yard tinkerers coming forward with new sources of fuel, new motors, new forms of transportation. New ways to heat and cool our homes. We'll help the old ladies ourselves! We'll set ourselves free forever from foreign sources of oil.
If any of you remembers the oil embargo of 1973 and the aftermath, then you remember that the response of all those "selfish" Americans would be to seek out and find the most efficient means of transportation, and heating their homes. Our free market choices will set us free for we import approximately 23% of our oil from the Middle East which is the difference between a car that gets 19 MPG as opposed to 14. We'll also see restrictions on domestic drilling relaxed finally. We never needed the government to impose minimum MPG standards for the auto industry. We only needed an honest govt that had faith in the American people, upheld our Constitution ( Article I sec 8 clause 11 meaning no foreign wars without a declaration) along with faith in free market capitalism. We could have been free over 20 years ago but due to corruption and influence of the bankers and the military industrial complex (including the oil-auto cartels) we have been chained to our mortal enemies (their friends).

So unless this lady can make a good argument that our involvement in the ME has to do with ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES oil, and unless she can make a case that her son or daughter should lay their life down to protect the economic health of corporations and to keep oil prices artificially low (remember the free market argument-that our military involvement hides the costs giving the illusion of low prices because we we pay twice) then she really can't make an argument at all. If she feels so strongly about keeping oil prices artificially low then tell her to put on a uniform and bring her own children with her and go fight for what she believes but leave our kids and our country out of it.

 

[Captain Shays]

A lot of it has to do with 'reinforcing U.N. resolution' too. Pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation like Iraq was totally illegal. You don't goto war without a decalaration, plain and simple. We spend billions of dollars towards are nation's security but yet we're spending more igniting the terrorism by sticking around in the Middle East.

How do you like the 'multi-billion dollar job program' over in Iraq, that the American taxpayer funds for? The Fed collects our tax revenue, throws it towards bombs, the bombs fall on bridges, and more taxes go towards fixing the bridges. 'Nation-building' has a huge price, as George W. Bush once said during the 2000 presidential candidate debates. Kinda' funny, huh?

AMEN! Bravo and VERY well stated.