Posted on 06/11/2007 9:53:43 PM PDT by Naldie
I posted this as a reply in another thread already. I appologize for posting twice, but thought there were likely going to be alot of replies, and it should be in it's own thread.
The US was involved the Middle East since Democrat FDR made us a problem to them. Why do the terrorists care enough to plan an attack on the US?
I agree with pulling out of the middle east and letting them fight eachother. Then they'll all wish the US was thier ally agaist thier neighbors. Nixon and Kissinger took this strategy with Russia and China.
Staying out of both WWI and WWII longer than the rest of Europe was what turned the US into the superpower it became. While everyone else was using up thier resources fighting, we sold them goods and made them loans. Europe suffered and the US prospered. Now China's doing this to the US.
What's happened to the Republican Party? It used to be the party of minding our own business. They've totally bough into the "democratic", progressive, interventionist foreign policy platform. "the world has changed, we can't stay uninvolved, we need to spread our way of life" is exactly the view Wilson was selling, and the people eventually bought it. Which has gotten us into the mess we're in today.
Wilson, Democrat, Advocated globalisim and interventionism, takes US into WWI to defend our allies. Helps create the League of Nations and rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, takes the US into WWII because US is attacked, to fight Nazism, and fight Facism. Helps create United Nations. Begins US involvement in Middle East and US alliance with Suadi Arabia. Helps rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Truman, Democrat, takes US into Korea and the Cold War to defend our allies and to fight Communo-Fascism. Helps create NATO and rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Eisenhower, Republican, former General, negotiates end of Korean War. Warns against having a powerful military. As an alternative to a strong military and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates building weapons for deterrance.
Johnson, Democrat, takes US into Viet Nam because US forces are attacked and to fight Communo-Fascism.
Nixon, Republican, takes US out of Viet Nam, opens dialog with Russia and China. As an alternative to the arms race and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates economic competition.
Reagan, Republican, increases dialog with Russia. Ends Cold War through economic victory without ever sending troops to any Soviet country.
To quote President Reagan:
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Were Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson the true conservatives? Were Washington, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan just wrong? Ron Paul voted to go after the terrorists who were involved in 9/11. He voted against granting the president authority to go into Iraq. He wants the troops home, to guard our borders.
George Washington defeated the British (the most powerful empire on Earth at that time) on American soil. To quote President Washington:
"avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.........The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible........Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it..."
How are we supposed to listen to advise about true conservatives from a true Libertarian, who is truly a Republican In Name Only?
Signed up just to post this dumb vanity?
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is indisguishable from Cindy Sheehan. Open borders, emasculate the the military, and blame America first. No thanks.
Some people just don't realize the world has changed significantly during the last 225 years. This is as kooky as the Taliban wanting to go back and live as if it was 800 AD. If the US did not get involved in WWII, the whole rest of the world today would be Nazi and Communist.
Gee,
What has happened to FR over the years?It use to be very conservative.
OK, you all have replied, and I feel it’s only fair I address your points:
.....................”Signed up just to post this dumb vanity?”...................
I’m interested in a keeping a free Republic. It seemed this site was too. I read things I wanted to respond to. So I signed up. If that’s offensive let me know. I’ll leave, but I don’t see how ignoring honest arguments help the cause of conserving the Republic that is our heritage.
..................”How are we supposed to listen to advise about true conservatives from a true Libertarian, who is truly a Republican In Name Only?”........
Is it Ron Paul thats abandoned our traditional values, or the politicians now in control of the Republican Party? He’s been elected ten terms as a Republican, and Reagan was a Paul supporter. Pual is not a Libertarian, he’s a supporter of the Constitution. The Libertarians backed him for President, but he split with that party over differences on policy.
..........”Ron Paul’s foreign policy is indisguishable from Cindy Sheehan. Open borders, emasculate the the military, and blame America first. No thanks.”.............
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home to guard and strengthen our borders. He doesn’t blame America, he blames the policies of the Government. If I said: “part of the reason crime goes up is beacause of we have more gun control laws”, Am I blaming Americans for the acts of criminals? Or blaming gun control?
As the first paragraph of Thomas Paines great AMERICAN booklet, “Common Sense”, states:
“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.”........
Wow. Sounds like something Reagan might have said. Hardly blame America first.
..............”Some people just don’t realize the world has changed significantly during the last 225 years.”...........
That’s exactly what Wilson, FDR, and all the progressives have been saying for 100 years. “The world’s different now, we’re all interconnected, we must go fight in these foreign causes”, and the Republicans opposed them.
Now the Democrats were right all along?
When did conservative change from meaning conservation of our Republican system the Founding Fathers pledged thier lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to establish, to conservation of the “progressive” foreign policies advocated by Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson?
...................”What has happened to FR over the years?It use to be very conservative.”..................
I’m new, so I can’t speak about FR. But I say, what’s happened to conservatives? Whats happened to the Republican Party? They used to be conservative.
Please taake a moment to think about it honesty: Does the policy of disarming the population breeds calls from unarmed victims for more gun control to stop crime? Doesn’t the gun violence that the unarmed victims can’t defend against play into the hands of gun control advocates?
Is there a chance that it’s the interventionist foreign policies of the progressives that bred the need for interventionist foreign policy? Are the Neo-Cons now playing into their hands by now taking the blame for starting the wars caused by progressive policies?
If so, then is it not worth considering: Why have the Neo-Cons parted from the tradional principles of our nation? Are they truly representing the Republican heritage of our country, or buying into the progressive system of internationalism dressed up as patriotism?
How does policing the world conserve the system of Republicanism and limited government of our forefathers?
I wanted to add, at the time Washinton spoke these words the British Empire, who would later burn Washington DC and the White House, were right across the border in Canada and sailing their ships in the waters off our shores. He fought and defeated them. Who knew better the risks this nation faced?
None the less, this was his farewell address, and his advice to our nation at one of it’s most precarious and dangerous periods in it’s history.
Post #2 stupid.
Because "Republican" and "Conservative" quit being synonyms about the time George H. W. Bush took office.
On the contrary.
As a firm believer in Constitutional government, Ron Paul understands that maintaining the integrity and security of the national borders is one of the few legitimate functions of the Fed...and that doing so is one of the few legitimate functions of a standing army.
Where’s Teddy’s “Big Stick” policy? Paul never talks of that.
Ok.
Please, give me some reasons why I should consider changing my views. I’ll consider them with reason and logic. I only ask the same from you.
I love this country enough that I’ve taken the time to read up on and study it’s heritage, the values, and beliefs the Founding Fathers fought ensure us. The current gang of politicians in DC aren’t it.
I thought FR was at its quota with Ron Paul groupies?
...........”Where’s Teddy’s “Big Stick” policy? Paul never talks of that.”...........
Our “big stick” is being whittled away as more and more of our troops and equipment are eaten up for foreign causes, and our debts are run up to pay for them. How are our military and defensive capabilities strengthened by using them up?
In addition, I believe Teddy Roosevelt was a proud progressive, who wanted to convert the Republican party into a progressive party. After experiencing a his Presidency, his party rejected him and nominated Taft when his term was up.
But he was a great inspiration and mentor to his nephew, Franklin, who took up the cause after him.
I invite you to read about it and correct me If I’m mistaken.
......”{Yawn...} Another cut-and run advocate who wants to surrender to the terrorists.”.....
Then you’re saying Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were right all along? The Republicans til Reagan left office were cut-and-runners?
Again: Give me some reasons why I should consider changing my views. I’ll consider them with reason and logic. And I ask the same from you.
I have to go to work, so I’ll make this my last post til tonight.
It is night where I am and I'm off to bed. Besides, I have presented my views repeatedly and Ron Paul fans tend to respond with insults.
Then you’re saying Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were right all along? The Republicans til Reagan left office were cut-and-runners?
I said no such thing and you know it. I'm not talking about what people did in past situations; each one is different. In sort, to cut and run right now would be a disgraceful abomination and the results would be catastrophic.
No advocate of cut-and-run will get my support or my vote.
The general format of Free Republic is to post news stories and discuss them, not for each member to post their own editorials. Vanities should be posted sparingly and only if you have something extraordinary to say. For example, I have been a member for eight years, and have probably posted no more than 5 vanites. So to join up and immediately begin by posting a vanity is rather bad form. Moreover, you vanity really didn't say anything new. It was just a rehash of the standard libertarian/isolationist arguments put forth by Ron Paul, the Libertarian party, et. al. We've heard it all before.
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home to guard and strengthen our borders.
That's and utterly impractical defense policy in a modern world. You cannot prevent terrorist attacks by guarding our borders. You must be proactive, and go after your enemies where they live, organize, and train. You must disrupt their money supply. And you must make them and those that states that support and harbor them pay a high price for doing so.
If I said: “part of the reason crime goes up is because of we have more gun control laws”, Am I blaming Americans for the acts of criminals? Or blaming gun control?
You cannot separate the actions of the government from that of the people when it comes to foreign policy. The old saying that politics stop at the water's edge should be adhered to in times of peace. It is disloyal to the country not to do so during war, most especially when we have been attacked on our own soil. We are democratic republic, and the government is our representative in dealing with the rest of the world. It's actions are the actions of the American people. That's what it means to be a nation. It's a totally different situation than on domestic issues.
Even if you don't accept that argument, Paul is simply wrong about the current war and it's causes anyway. The jihadis are not attacking us because we overthrew the Iranian government fifty years ago, or because we have troops in the middle-east or any other actions of our government past, present or future. They are motivated by an evil aggressive ideology that calls for complete global domination; fundamentalist Islam. Their first step in that plan is to take over the middle-east, which would allow them to destroy the world economy.
When did conservative change from meaning conservation of our Republican system the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to establish, to conservation of the “progressive” foreign policies advocated by Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson?
Actually we support the foreign policies of presidents like Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon. None of them were isolationists. They all believed in standing by our allies, defeating our enemies around the world, and making no apolgies for pursuing our own national interests abroad.
Should the US have gotten involved in any way in WWII?
Be specific.
The people that just mindlessly quote Washington on this leave out that little underlined part above. In a modern global world, the liberty in "as we are now at liberty to do it" gets smaller and smaller.
Welcome to FR. Don’t worry there are many globalist, liberal socialist leaning members who pretend to be conservatives that hate Ron Paul because he backs US values and the Constitution.
I’ll concede your point. I assumed that Paul, being a former Libertarian would still hold the position of that party, which is that open immigration would be just fine once we eliminate the welfare state. On further review it seems he does support reducing immigration and robust border enforcement.
Good point. They also seem to forget that the great libertarian idol and favorite Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, launched an undeclared war halfway around the world to defend American economic interests and punish the Islamic terrorists of the day. Which BTW, we won.
That the problem here is the reactionaries mistakenly call themselves “conservatives”. They aren’t.
“Republican” and “conservative” have never been synonymous, neither were “Democrat” and “liberal”, and not even are “Libertarian” and “libertarian”, though part of them are.
Republicans, as a party en large, have had the most success politically and electorally when they not only espouse but are true to conservative / libertarian principles.
You are correct about Bush family not being true conservatives, they are too much into “big government” solutions where exactly opposite is required, so the result looks like Third Way, even if they are sold as “private” or “market-place” solutions. And it’s easy to run a “kinder and gentler” government giving away its largess at the public’s expense while solving nothing and perpetuating dependency on government... But there is very little that is “conservative” about Ron Paul, so we should not be under the false impression that his Libertarian “conservatism” is any more conservative than Bushes’.
You mean, aside from his constructionist take on the Constitution, and his unwillingness to vote in ways that violate that perspective?
They don't call him "Dr. No" for nothing. I think that's pretty conservative, myself.
Great post
And Dr. Paul isn't an isolationist. But you already know that tired old slur is a lie don't you?
It's not conservative to intervene into affairs that are none of our business either.
Because libertarians are much more conservative than Republicans.
You're wrong about all those.
But your post (while all wrong) serves to illustrate one vary valuable lesson for us all:
Due to the inability of the average Republican to comprehend Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy, (even if it is traditionally American Republican patriotism in its origin), Dr. Paul will not win the Republican nomination for POTUS.
Then we will have at a minimum, 8 solid years of pure hell under ademoncrat administration, after which this nation will be but a burned-out shell of its former self.
Due to the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of Republicans such as yourself.
Welcome to Free Republic!
Don't worry, you're in the right place. The founder, Jim, and probably most of the mods are good people, and all for conservative values.
There are some on this site who will argue with you, but just keep to your message, and you'll do just fine.
Now just why do you suppose that approximate date means something?
Is it because in those days the United States of America had not developed those pesky "entangling alliances" with other countries?
Is it because in those days Americans were largely guided by their own highly-developed sense of morality and justice?
Is is because in those days America still had real money?
Is it because in those days Americans knew instinctively when some politician could not be trusted?
Personally, I think attempting to roll back the clock to around 1930 would be a good thing.
As for being ignorant, I would be willing to put my depth of knowledge on history and politics to the test against you or anyone else I’m likely to encounter on FR.
As for being ignorant, I would be willing to put my depth of knowledge on history and politics to the test against you or anyone else I’m likely to encounter on FR.
Once again, you just don't get it.
Blaming our past leadership for a failed foreign policy is hardly the same as "blame America first".
The ability to recognize bad policy and reject it seems somehow related to one's world view. If I claim I am for America first, why would I endorse a policy of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, especially when such actions may result in bringing trouble upon my own country?
Who do you suppose wrote the following?
"The old saying that politics stop at the water's edge should be adhered to in times of peace."
Where did that grossly un-American statement come from? (/s)
Shall we presume you are not going to try to defend your other two incorrect statements about Ron Paul?
And as for this:
"As for being ignorant, I would be willing to put my depth of knowledge on history and politics to the test against you or anyone else I’m likely to encounter on FR."
You seem to be attempting it already.
You are losing.
Allegra,
............................”I have presented my views repeatedly and Ron Paul fans tend to respond with insults.”...................
Sorry. If you catch me being insulting call me on it. I usually try not to be.
....................”I said no such thing and you know it. I’m not talking about what people did in past situations; each one is different. In sort, to cut and run right now would be a disgraceful abomination and the results would be catastrophic.”.................
I meant it as an honest question. Do I understand: Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were wrong take the country to war, and Ike and Nixon were right to take us out of war, and Reagan was right to keep us out, but Iraq is different?
To me the term “cut-and-run” doesn’t give our strategic options the seriousness due.
One strategy: Choose the battleground by standing somewhere so offensive the enemy will come to you. The first time I heard someone say “Fight them over there.....not over here”, it made some sense. Sadam’s an enemy many wanted to get rid of for a while, and being in Iraq would be offensive. But you’re suppose to stand where the enemy’s weak and you’re strong.
More strategy: Where he’s strong, retreat. Where he’s weak, advance. Don’t wear yourself out battling toe to toe. Don’t attack until you’ve manuvered him into his weakest position. Better yet, defeat him without even deploying troops. Become non-threatening. Let him fight among his neighbors. Wear him down through economic and political means. It’s better to win a battle, leave, and avoid a loss than hold a position to avoid retreating.
Basic use of strategy. Some of what are considered Washington’s greatest military moves were retreats from weak positions without getting caught.
But instead we burn up our economy and military while Russia and China watch and wait. WWI and WWII were events that helped make the US a superpower, because conservatives kept us out of war until the other nations were already weakened. We entered the wars with a fresh military, a strong economy, and allies that were greatful for our presence.
Viet Nam was a failure. We fought against and for a people who’s culture we couldn’t relate to. The enemy was prepared to fight fanatically for as long as it took. Even many who lived here and enjoyed the blessings of this great country turned against it. We ran up debts, and the economy suffered until Reagan. Our enemies would like to see that happen again.
Don’t think the Middle East would unite against us if we step back. They’ll fight among themselves. And the more they fight each other, the more they’ll all need to keep powerful foreigners on freindly terms.
Don’t think the Middle East would unite against us if we step back. They’ll fight among themselves. And the more they fight each other, the more they’ll all need to keep powerful foreigners on freindly terms.
Vietnam is not Iraq or Afghanistan.
I never said the Middle East would unite against us. However, I firmly believe that the terrorist attacks would increase and spread west until eventually life in the U.S. would become much different than it is today.
Plus, if the U.S. just cut and run (which is an apt phrase IMO), it would send a very bad message and don't think Iran and others would not capitalize on that in a hurry.
Pulling out at this point is not an option. Nothing anybody says will change my mind on that.
I will caution you not to believe the media's portrayal of what is going on in Iraq. It is so distorted and slanted that it's almost fictional.
“Vietnam is not Iraq or Afghanistan.”
You are absolutely right!
There is a huge difference between the two.
You posted it yourself.
“terrorist attacks”
At home...
Hugin,
Sorry if this is a little too long, but there’s alot to address.
.................”The general format of Free Republic is to post news stories and discuss them, not for each member to post their own editorials”.................
If I’ve violated rules or used an unacceptable format, I appoligize. I don’t assume only reporters write articles worth reading, but I see how the format of posting an article would cut down on frivolous posts. I’ll follow your advice in the future.
I thought my post contained valid historical information, and it was relevent some posts I read here. Figured some hadn’t seen it.
...................”That’s and utterly impractical defense policy in a modern world. You cannot prevent terrorist attacks by guarding our borders. You must be proactive, and go after your enemies where they live, organize, and train. You must disrupt their money supply. And you must make them and those that states that support and harbor them pay a high price for doing so.”..........................
Where did the terrorists live? Paul voted to go after the 9/11 terrorists. He voted against going into Iraq.
.....................”You cannot separate the actions of the government from that of the people when it comes to foreign policy. The old saying that politics stop at the water’s edge should be adhered to in times of peace. It is disloyal to the country not to do so during war, most especially when we have been attacked on our own soil. We are democratic republic, and the government is our representative in dealing with the rest of the world. It’s actions are the actions of the American people. That’s what it means to be a nation. It’s a totally different situation than on domestic issues. “..................
Are you saying if a President declares war, then any critisism of his foreign policies becomes disloyalty to America? Paul is a Congressman and a Presidential canidate, isn’t it his job to question policy?
How much more disloyal to watch politicians do what you believe destructive to our country and stand silent? Will you stand silent if Hillary is elected, and her foreign policy is destroying America as long as we’re at war? How’s that conservative?
.................”Even if you don’t accept that argument, Paul is simply wrong about the current war and it’s causes anyway. The jihadis are not attacking us because we overthrew the Iranian government fifty years ago, or because we have troops in the middle-east or any other actions of our government past, present or future. They are motivated by an evil aggressive ideology that calls for complete global domination; fundamentalist Islam.”.............................
If they attack somebody because of thier ideaology, why us?
...................”Their first step in that plan is to take over the middle-east, which would allow them to destroy the world economy.”..........
If they didn’t see us in Muslim countries to begin with, why wouldn’t they be fighting each other instead? If you realize a rooms full of angry drunks itching to fight, do your business and leave. Why pick sides or get involved when none of these people care about you beyond how it benefits them?
Let them fight each other. The more they fight, the more they’ll all need to keep powerful foreign nations like the US on friendly terms.
I don’t believe the Muslims will unite faster than Europe did, or the terroists will conquer Earth faster than the Nazis, Fascists, or Communists.
...................”I know what I saw and heard him say in the first debate. When asked a direct question about whether he thought Iran’s nuclear program was a threat, and what he would do about it, he started talking about the 1950s CIA backed coup and how Islamic terrorism wouldn’t’t be a problem if we didn’t have troops in the middle-east. Which as I said is exactly the same response you get from Cindy Sheehan leftists. If that’s not Blame America First I don’t know what is.”.......................
If someone wants to keep our country out of war, and says getting involved in the politics of foreigners was a mistake, and a Democrat agrees with him, he’s blaming America?
Let me quote:
“It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts — for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.”
That was Woodrow Wilson.
So if someone dedicates the lives and wealth of America fighting for the interests of foreign nations, and a Democrat agrees with him, is he a patriot?
I thought a patriot was someone willing to sacrifice for his country. Not sacrifice his country’s people and wealth to benefit of foreign causes.
............”Actually we support the foreign policies of presidents like Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon. None of them were isolationists. They all believed in standing by our allies, defeating our enemies around the world, and making no apolgies for pursuing our own national interests abroad.”............
Paul voted for going after the terrorists. He supports Washington’s advice of freindly, non-politically binding relations with other nations. Paul’s not an isolationist, though he’s often accused of it. The same accusation Wilson and FDR used against the Republicans for wanting to avoid war.
Eisenhower, ex-general and President, took us out of Korea, cut taxes, and reduced the size of the military. He was absolutely commited to fighting Communism, but didn’t need Americans dying on foreign soil to do it. His “New Look” policy broke with the spend and war policy of the Democrats. It focused on fighting Communism by building up the US economy and stockpiling weapons for retaliation. He believed the Democrats’ policies would bankrupt the nation and lead to Communist victory.
While I’m against more than a couple of Nixon’s domestic debacles, Nixon and Kissinger knew how to deal with the Soviets and China. He tried to show them he was a friendly guy. He stepped back to let them fight among themselves. He negotiated our withdrawl from Viet Nam. He transformed the Cold War from a contest in killing to an economic contest. The US would defeat Communism by showing thier peoples America’s was a better way of life. If Nixon had been able to continue his foreign policies without the turmoil at home, I think we would’ve won the Cold War alot sooner.
And what did Reagan do? He took up the cause of the former Cold War Republicans before him. He made friends with Russia while at the same time undermining thier power by forcing them to compete with us economically. He made the Communist system look evil in the eyes of it’s people by comparing thier system to ours. We won by making our country strong, not by weakening it letting wars eat up our money and military.
I highly doubt the Middle East has it’s crap together now nearly as much as the Communists did then.
What did Reagan say about Paul?
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Let me add, I apprecite your thoughtful response. I asked for reasons to consider changing my views and you provided some, but I still disagree.
..........................”Vietnam is not Iraq or Afghanistan. “...............................
One similarity, a strategic mistake: Don’t appear to expend too much effort on weak enemies. The harder it is to defeat them, and the longer it goes on, the weaker we look. We are lose respect in the eyes of other enemies. If we’re having such a hard time fighting what seem to be third world terrorists, even when we win, why should they fear us? Worse, the war eats up our strength.
How long have there been terrorists in the Middle East? When Reagan bombed Qadhafi, Qadhafi peed his pants. We showed we could crush him and he quit messing with us.
We should’ve crushed the Taliban and terrorists, come home, and left those countries to thier squabbles.
.............”I never said the Middle East would unite against us. However, I firmly believe that the terrorist attacks would increase and spread west until eventually life in the U.S. would become much different than it is today. “............
Pull out and let the terrorists and governments over there waste their energy and strength on each other. I don’t think they’re any more organized or clever than the Soviets or Nazis, and we handled them.
...........”Plus, if the U.S. just cut and run (which is an apt phrase IMO), it would send a very bad message and don’t think Iran and others would not capitalize on that in a hurry.”................
Even the political leaders in the Middle East who hated us condemned the 9/11 attacks when it first happened. Why? They were terrified and didn’t want to get blamed. How do our enemies act now?
We sent a bad message by going and staying in Iraq. The message is we’re already tied up fighting in two enemies. It’s gone on long enough that Americans are tired of war. We’re overextended. So you’ll likely get away with a few shenanigans Mr. Ahmadinejad, Jong Il, and Chavez. Much less Putin and Jintao.
...............”Pulling out at this point is not an option. Nothing anybody says will change my mind on that.
I will caution you not to believe the media’s portrayal of what is going on in Iraq. It is so distorted and slanted that it’s almost fictional.”...............
I would ask you to at least give fair consideration to the reasons and logic I’ve offered. Beyond that I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. As far as the media goes, I’ll take your advice.
Well, of course we disagree. You didn't really think you were going to change my mind, did you?
I've heard the same "reasons and logic" before...often from Democrats on the news. If you could hear how our troops refer to these people, you'd blush right to the tip of your ears.
I would ask you to give fair consideration to someone who has been on the ground for over three years and can see straight through the BS people are being fed back home, instead of addressing me as if I am some poor, misguided soul simply because I think Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals are seriously flawed and highly idealogical.
AmericaUnited,
.........”Let’s get a direct answer, no weaseling, dodging, being evasive, squirming, etc., etc.
Should the US have gotten involved in any way in WWII?
Be specific.”...........
Yes. We likely entered at about the right time. Instead of earlier as FDR wanted to do. When Germany was weakened by war and our allies held our aid in the highest esteem. Before the war was over, Churchill, leader of the British empire, realized US would be a superpower and overshadow Europe because the European countries were weakened by war.
Let me ask you a question, and please answer it directly: Who did Hitler attack, a powerful nation an ocean away minding it’s own business? Or the nations around him who’s policies could be blamed for ruining Germany? Would Hitler have even come to power if not for these policies?
.............”The people that just mindlessly quote Washington on this leave out that little underlined part above. In a modern global world, the liberty in “as we are now at liberty to do it” gets smaller and smaller”..................
“As far as we are able to do it” refers to permanent alliances, by which he meant fullfil your promises to those you’ve made promises to, but make no new permanent alliances. Make instead temporary alliances when the country is in danger.
Because in permanent alliances your support is taken for granted. Nations already gauranteed support have less concern for your interests. Foreigners can use your military power as threat against rivals. And Drag you into wars.
Better to make only temporary alliances that sereve the needs of America than have our actions controled by commitments to foreign interests.
If only we had taken his advice.
...........”Good point. They also seem to forget that the great libertarian idol and favorite Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, launched an undeclared war halfway around the world to defend American economic interests and punish the Islamic terrorists of the day. Which BTW, we won”................
Not being a Libertarian, I don’t care who’s a Libertarian idol.
If your refering to the Barbary Wars, where American ships were being captured and everyone on them turned into slaves, and America given the ultimatum to either pay extorition money or see more Americans enslaved, I’d say that’s different from Iraq. Again, Paul voted for going after the terrorists.
Who did Hitler attack, a powerful nation an ocean away minding it’s own business?
No Japan attacked a powerful nation an ocean away. Hitler attacked a powerful nation next door to him, that had signed a nonaggression pact with. Typical liberal kook thinking that if you mind your own business, all the "bad people" will leave you alone.
Or the nations around him who’s policies could be blamed for ruining Germany? Would Hitler have even come to power if not for these policies?
Oh yes, blame the Allies for Hitler. Of course it had nothing to do with the German people starting WWI. More liberal kook thinking, always blame the "good guys" for the "bad guys" behavior.
........................”I’ve heard the same “reasons and logic” before...often from Democrats on the news. If you could hear how our troops refer to these people, you’d blush right to the tip of your ears. “..............................
I have to admit I’ve never been to Iraq, so I can’t argue about what you see. Not my place to tell you whats up on the ground. I do know soldiers, and I’ve heard them talk about the media. Most are proud to be doing what they can for thier country, and will be willing to do it again. A few are bitter about the war.
Also, I don’t listen too much to the Democrats or Republicans on the news to form my opinions. I study history, economics, and strategy and form my own opinions.
.................................”I would ask you to give fair consideration to someone who has been on the ground for over three years and can see straight through the BS people are being fed back home, instead of addressing me as if I am some poor, misguided soul simply because I think Ron Paul’s foreign policy proposals are seriously flawed and highly idealogical.”..................................
I didn’t mean to disrespectful. If I came across that way I apoligize. If you reread my posts, I hope it’s clear they weren’t intended that way.
Being there, your opinion carries weight. But no reason you’ve been able to express in words has been convincing enough to make me think we should stay.
My take, from a distance and not being there, is that the soldiers stay on base, which is basicly an isolated town. Most of the time they’re stuck there with nothing to do. Other times things get crazy. They only get to leave in groups of 40 or more cause it’s too dangerous to go out in less, except on certain missions. The bright spot is that some soldiers are getting some bad ass new weapons that sound like science fiction. But most of the Iraqis have turned against the Americans since Abu Ghraib, and even most of the one’s that still believe in us won’t help because thier families will be killed. The average Iraqi’s aren’t willing to work and fight to help create what we’re trying to. So I say leave them to thier country.
I have the deepest respect for the soldiers who are risking thier lives for us. I have family and friends that fought, and I’m not going to argue with them if they support the war. I’ve heard stories of some horrible crap that happens the lasting affects. But I question that the situation will get better. I question that the Iraqis care about us or have any gratitude. I care whether by the time they getting thier crap together it will have been worth the cost to our men and country.
If you got a job to do over there you have my respect. When you say no words I say can change your mind, I understand. Words are cheap, and what you see is real.
Not being there, I can’t see it. I gotta weigh the facts as I know them. I still wanna see us out.
My take, from a distance and not being there, is that the soldiers stay on base, which is basicly an isolated town.
Soldiers go out off of the bases every day, on various missions. There are some who stay on base and some who work outside the wire.
Most of the time they’re stuck there with nothing to do.
Not really. There is downtime, but the military is hard at work on a multitude of projects. I work with them on one that can be backbreaking, exhausting, frustrating and yet, very challenging and rewarding. This takes us off base and into the red zone a few times a week.
Other times things get crazy.
Yes. It's a war. Against some very bad people who would love to do harm to you and anyone else in the U.S.
They only get to leave in groups of 40 or more cause it’s too dangerous to go out in less, except on certain missions.
I am not aware of any such rule and have never been in a military convoy that had that many people in it.
The bright spot is that some soldiers are getting some bad ass new weapons that sound like science fiction. But most of the Iraqis have turned against the Americans since Abu Ghraib...
Actually most Iraqis are terrified at the prospect of our leaving right now and do not want us to do it. They don't give a rat's about Abu Ghraib anymore. I interact with Iraqi government officials almost every day and regular shopkeepers, barbers, etc. on a regular basis. Most of them like Americans and consider us friends.
...and even most of the one’s that still believe in us won’t help because thier families will be killed. The average Iraqi’s aren’t willing to work and fight to help create what we’re trying to. So I say leave them to thier country.
That's another perception the media loves to push. Not true. Iraqis are ratting out terrorists at an ever-increasing rate. They want peace. Iraqis are joining the Army and the police force at a high rate. They want to be involved in the security of their country. There have been many recent success stories about the Iraqi Army taking down terrorists. The mainstream media won't show them, but the stories are out there. One good source in the Multi-National Forces-Iraq site.
Not being there, I can’t see it. I gotta weigh the facts as I know them. I still wanna see us out.
It would be great to be out. However, being here and having been here for over three years, I realize that to pull out now would have devastating consequences. Short term and long term.
AmericaUnited,
You asked for a direct answer with no evasiveness and I believe I gave you one. I also asked for a direct answer, but I gues I should’ve ask for a few direct answers, as two didn’t recieve them.
I asked if Hitler attacked a powerful nation an ocean away minding it’s own business. You replied:
.........”No Japan attacked a powerful nation an ocean away. Hitler attacked a powerful nation next door to him, that had signed a nonaggression pact with. Typical liberal kook thinking that if you mind your own business, all the “bad people” will leave you alone.”..........
Japan was in the Pacific, Hawaii was not and ocean away from Japan, and we weren’t minding our own business. We had policies in place to cut off supplies to Japan. And no, I’m not blaming America, no I’m not saying we shouldn’t have had an embargo, no, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have fought Japan.
If I was walking down the street one night and got robbed and stabbed, I’m sure I could say it’s all the criminals fault and I wouldn’t do anything different next time. Or I could not walk that street at night, watch what’s going on around me, or carry a weapon. Is that “blaming the victim” or evaluating policy? Should I continue the same policy that got me stabbed because it wasn’t my fault, a bad person did it? Would a friend trying to give me advice be “blaming the victim”?
Hitler paid a huge price for attacking Russia. And I’m sure afterwards both Hitler and Stalin thought of how they’d do it different next time.
...................................”Oh yes, blame the Allies for Hitler. Of course it had nothing to do with the German people starting WWI. More liberal kook thinking, always blame the “good guys” for the “bad guys” behavior.”..........................
I didn’t “blame” anyone for Germany’s behavior. I never said it had nothing to do with the Germans starting WWI.
I don’t think you understood what I said. My words were “COULD be blamed”, not “SHOULD be blamed”. And while I gave you a direct answer, without evasiveness to your question, I don’t seem to have gotten a direct answer from you on either of these.
Allegra,
Funny, but most of what I typed was told to me by soldiers. They’ve shown me video tapes of thier down time and talked about it. Perhaps it depends on the time frame or where you’re stationed. But again, not being there, perhaps my peicing together of the information is inaccurate. I’ll ask what one a little more about Iraq next time I have the chance.
What you typed is nothing like what I'm experiencing and have been since early '04. It's more like what the media spews.
And I am not in a quiet area. I'm right in the middle of it all. In fact, today has been quite active, I suspect due to yesterday's events in Samarra.
Did you know that it is further across ocean from Hawaii to Japan, than it is from the US mainland to Europe?
I didn’t “blame” anyone for Germany’s behavior.
Oh you sure did and it's right here in black and white:
Who did Hitler attack, a powerful nation an ocean away minding it’s own business? Or the nations around him who’s policies could be blamed for ruining Germany?
You are blaming those nations for having policies that caused them to be attacked.
Hitler paid a huge price for attacking Russia.
So? That's irrelevant to the point being made that Hitler attacked countries that were minding their own business. Does Poland ring a bell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.