Ron Paul Offers Giuliani Foreign Policy 'Reading Assignment'

Giuliani cannot win the general election without the kind of people who are now into Ron Paul.

Truthers?

It will be (*possibly) in spite of these kinds of people ...
.
.
.
(* I am not now or in the immediate future staking my claim on any one candidate.)

RP jumped the shark in the last debate. arguing the merits of an unelectable candidates position is a waste of time. Good luck with your lost cause.

Any free and open society can be hit by a surprise attack

Indeed it can. However to continue not to learn from those that attacked on possible reasons for why we were attacked exemplifies either a level of ignorance or lack of concern.

The Paulist problem is that they don't believe in fighting back.

Considering the Constitutional resolutions Dr. Paul introduced to 'fight back' I do believe you are wrong

For details on this position, go to LewRockwell.com

Ah yes another boogeyman. I visit LRC on a semi-regular basis. Do I agree with all of their columnists? By no means no. I find reads by DiLorenzo, Woods, and Paul to be a refreshing view of government. Same with Sobran from time to time. But I don't agree with many posts here that cheer big government so 'our' team can 'win' the election. Should I tell people that I recommend to this site they should 'wash their hands afterward' because of some bad apples I've seen in the past 6 years?

For your reference...all six pages in .jpg format.
War Stories: Deception in the Pacific McCollum Memorandum
Below is a declassified memorandum written on October 7, 1940, by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, then communications routing officer for President Roosevelt and head of the Far East desk of naval intelligence. The content includes tactics to overcome public opposition to entering World War II by provoking Japan to strike the United States first.

I do not support RP for President because I disagree with him on foreign policy. I have just noted that his ideas on domestic policy and small l libertarianism will have to be taken up by a Republican candidate who can win, if that candidate wants to win.

The Big L Libertarians are a bunch of gay-kissing feminist left wingers who are funded by feminists and gays. There is a huge difference between those fruitcakes and the type of ultra right winger that lives in Wyoming who consider themselves small l libertarians along with most other Republicans who live in western states (Montana for instance).

RP would attract the far right more than the type who want to legalize pot, which is a red herring nor would I think it cool to legalize smoking in front of other people’s children again.

I also don’t think we are going to eliminate the Federal Reserve in our lifetime.

Still...Republicans in power have got to stop thinking that new laws are constantly necessary to regulate the behavior of others.

It is a Democrat philosophy that new laws are always needed to be “progressive”.

Let’s take an example: say Ted Kennedy comes up with a bill that says that all men need to pay a $20,000 bond to the government when they get married and this bond will be forfeited if the man ever beats his wife.

It would not be conservative for Republican politicians to jump on the bandwagon thinking “Golly gee. Aren’t we swell. Aren’t we chivalrous. Isn’t the US becoming a wonderful society that protects its women. Won’t this bode well for my reelectoin because I just learned that 54% of voters are women”.

Voting for a law like the above would actually guarantee being thrown out on one’s ear at the next election...and unfortunately that is what has been happening lately because laws similar to that have been passing (VAWA for instance).

This is where RP is coming from with his recent speeches.

One does not have to support him for pres in order to be glad that he will be around for a few more debates (where he will hopefully drop his foolish Iraq War demagoguery).

Paul did not “jump the shark” in the second debate. Unfortunately, it took his misguided anti-war remarks for the media to be convinced to let him be heard.

But it will take conservative blogs for this guy to remain in the limelight. The left wing media will want to shut him down precisely because they are totally invested in social regulation and social engineering.

I was a neocon until I realized that neocons agree with liberals on the social regulation and social engineering philosophies.

Fine. We agree he has no chance.

TechPresident.com has been tracking YouTube viewers of various candidates.

We're seeing a climb in RP's numbers here that is startling. Notice that only Romney and Ron Paul are on a sharp rising trend. McStain and Giuliani and the others are pretty flatlined.

Ron Paul is gaining support. How much is anyone's guess. But this makes it look like something more than the mere 1% or so that they show him as having in the major polls.

Surprising how flat Rudi and McStain are. I can't get over it.

You are wasting your time here. Do yourself a favor go to
Alexa and put in Freerepublic for web traffic. You will see that conservatives are leaving this site. Traffic is on steady decline. You will get more thoughtful and reasoned debate on digg. You are not allowed to think
outside the neo-con box here.

But according to President Hoover, we weren’t using non-interventionism as he said the day after Pearl Harbor: “You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.” See others posts here too.

Further, Dr. Paul is not a pacifist- he indicates here that war against Japan was justifiable:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr022598ffi.htm
Going to war should be the most reluctant decision that we make. We should go to war only when there is no other reasonable alternative. I saw George Stephanopoulos on television a few days ago and he said that even in World War II, we had some people who were opposed to World War II. But I can tell you the day after Pearl Harbor, the Senate voted 82-0 and the House voted 388-1 to go to war against Japan. But Japan had attacked us at that time. It was a totally different situation from the one we face in Iraq. — 1998

Good day.

>>I detect that those who advocate for Paul’s candidacy have a hidden agenda: The legalization of drugs.

It’s a states rights issue. How do you figure the Constitution authorizes the restriction of “drugs”?

Ron, I’m pretty sure that none of the 9/11 guys was from Iraq. Most of them were, in fact, from Saudi Arabia, a country that we have, I’m also pretty sure, never bombed (whether we perhaps should have is another matter). And your point was?

"America's police choices have consequences. Right or Wrong; It is simply a fact that... American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world." - The 9/11 Commission Report

"He (bin Laden) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War," the commission report stated. Paul also cited a 2003 Vanity Fair interview with Paul Wolfowitz in which the then-deputy defense secretary said that U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia had been a "huge recruiting device for al Qaeda." "In fact, if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land," Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair.

So let me get this straight: Even though the House of Saud had no problem allowing American forces near Mecca to protect the nation from having its oil fields possessed by Saddam, the USA was supposed to consider the feelings of a terrorist leader that was expelled from the nation?

On top of that, America was supposed to consider the grievances of someone concerned about "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War" when the consensus of the U.N. and both the Clinton and Bush administrations were that Saddam was hiding nuclear weapon manufacturing capability in violation of the cease-fire that ended the war?

It would be very interesting to read what Congressman Paul said on the House floor about these things when they were actually happening, and not simply making reference to history books written by bureaucrats with 20/20 hindsight.

You are wasting your time here. Do yourself a favor go to Alexa and put in Freerepublic for web traffic. You will see that conservatives are leaving this site. Traffic is on steady decline. You will get more thoughtful and reasoned debate on digg. You are not allowed to think outside the neo-con box here.

And you are still here because...?

It could be argued that all of the actions proposed were designed to neutralize Japan...which the memo argued was vital to the British effort in Europe...but at the same time, the memo is also proof that high level advisers to FDR were hoping to goad the Japanese into an attack on the US so that they could marginalize the American public's resistance to getting involved in WWII.

You dramatically understate the case that this communication was inspired by concerns about the Nazis and Fascists' alliance with the Japanese. In fact, with the exception of the single reference to the political advantage of goading the Japanese to attack, it is not an issue deemed worth addressing until the very last part of the memo. I don't know who it is that underlined #10 with red ink, but it doesn't make a maddog bit of sense to believe it was McCollum.

The first three pages of McCollum's letter deals with his assessment that the Japanese threatened the British Empire's ability to deal with the Nazi-Fascist forces, and in a scenario in which the Japanese distraction in the Pacific led Germany and Italy to defeat England, America would be next on their list. From the bottom of page 1 and the top of Page 2 of the memo:

...As a result of this policy, Germany and Italy have lately concluded a military alliance with Japan directed against the United States. If the published terms of this treaty and the pointed utterances of German, Italian and Japanese leaders can be believed, and there seems no ground on which to doubt either, the three totalitarian powers agree to make war on the United States, should she come to the assistance of England, or should she attempt to forcibly interfere with Japan's aims in the Orient and,
Page [2]
furthermore, Germany and Italy expressly reserve the right to determine whether American aid to Britain, short of war, is a cause for war or not after they have succeeded in defeating England. In other words, after England has been disposed of her enemies will decide whether or not to immediately proceed with an attack on the United States.

On the third page, there is an assessment of Japanese military forces and how they shape up against those of the U.S. While the Japanese had their strengths, they did not overall match up well against the Americans.

McCollum is steadfast on one thing: Neutralizing Hirohito's Japan gives the English and the Dutch the best chance at holding off Hitler and Mussolini. IMHO, A fair, non-conspiratorial reading of this document portrays a military leader strategizing to prevent the Japanese from making an subsequent Nazi-Fascist attack on the American mainland more likely. The "course of action" list and its preamble SHOULD be characterized as saying, "Look, we've got to beat the Japanese, but nobody wants us to fire the first shot. If THEY don't fire first, we'll just have to slow them down as much as we possibly can. If they are as determined as we believe they are, they WILL shoot first, after which the American public will be supportive of defeating them."

Indeed, the final two points in McCollum's summary are as follows (bold mine):

6. It is to the interest of the United States to eliminate Japan's threat in the Pacific at the earliest opportunity by taking prompt and aggressive action against Japan.
7. In the absence of United States ability to take the political offensive, additional naval force should be sent to the orient and agreements entered into with Holland and England that would serve as an effective check against Japanese encroachments in South-eastern Asia.

Note the absence of a repeating of the "led to commit an overt act of war" line of reasoning.

It is the height of deception to trumpet this memo as being, as banned ex-Freeper and current 9/11 Truthgoof Michael Rivero puts it -- "The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor." And for crying out loud, it only makes sense that military leaders discuss among themselves the feasibility of going to war even when things have not yet degenerated into chaos. Only an incompetent leader would bar talk of a battle plan until diplomacy had broken down for the last time.

>> America’s police choices

Opps, that’s “America’s policy choices”

I don't know who it is that underlined #10 with red ink, but it doesn't make a maddog bit of sense to believe it was McCollum.

The underlining was mine...I should have made that clear. But I don't think I understated anything...the full version of the memo is all over the internet...anyone can read the whole thing. Of course, you are correct...the memo mostly deals with why McCollum believed the Japanese had to be neutralized within the context of the European war the UK was fighting. I don't think I understated that because I don't think I overstated the significance of McCollum's point in #10. Without even debating whether McCollum's predictions were likely to be accurate...or whether the US government would have been justified, under the circumstances, to try to provoke a Japanese act of war...the memo does show that at least one high level military adviser in the FDR Administration was hoping that US policies in '40 and '41 would provoke the Japanese into attacking the US...no need to read any more into it than that

So let me get this straight: Even though the House of Saud had no problem allowing American forces near Mecca to protect the nation from having its oil fields possessed by Saddam, the USA was supposed to consider the feelings of a terrorist leader that was expelled from the nation?

Considering that AQ has grown into a worldwide insurgency movement that has already killed thousands of Americans and about which there are justified fears of chemical, biological or nuclear attacks against the US and considering that during this period of growth from 1991 until the day US troops left Saudi Arabia, AQ has repeatedly cited the US military presence in Saudi Arabia as one of the bases of its war against the US...yes...that should be part of the equation when the US government made the decision to keep US bases in Saudi Arabia (or when the US government today decides to build permanent bases in Iraq)...to not even consider the fact the AQ cited this as one of the three or four reasons for its war against the US would be to show that one is not serious about fighting the threat of terrorism against the US

On top of that, America was supposed to consider the grievances of someone concerned about "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War" when the consensus of the U.N. and both the Clinton and Bush administrations were that Saddam was hiding nuclear weapon manufacturing capability in violation of the cease-fire that ended the war?

Umm...yeah...I mean, would most Americans really agree with Madeline Albright when she told 60 Minutes that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions was "worth it"? When American planes (flying under UN authority...which should really make the blood of patriotic Americans boil) bombed electrical stations in Iraq so as to disable the water treatment plants...which directly led to the spread of diseases like cholera and typhoid...I think most Americans would disagree with Col. John Warden III, deputy director of strategy for the Air Force when he said:

People say, “You didn’t recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.” Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions — help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions. Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity. He needs help. If there are political objectives that the UN coalition has, it can say, “Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.” It gives us long-term leverage.

I believe most Americans would be reviled at US government officials pursuing policies they knew were resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's...mostly children...but you and I know that most Americans were only vaguely aware that the US government was even imposing sanctions against Iraq. This is why Ron Paul is not blaming "America"...he is blaming the American government for undertaking policies that ultimately endanger Americans. Yes...Saddam holds a lot of resonsibility for the deaths of those Iraqi civilians...but so does the US government...and the Muslim world remembers comments like Albright's and assumes (probably correctly) that the US government kills Muslims without much care...are we surprised this makes Muslims angry?

It would be very interesting to read what Congressman Paul said on the House floor about these things when they were actually happening, and not simply making reference to history books written by bureaucrats with 20/20 hindsight.

Fortunately, Ron Paul's congressional website has a good archive of his speeches and writings and you can see that he has remained consistent on these points and most of his predictions of the effects on the American people of the American government's foreign policies have proven to be correct. With respect to the war in Iraq...you can go back and look at his speeches and writings from 2002...his predictions for this war have proven to be, unfortunately, amazingly accurate. And on the broader issues of American interventionism in the Middle East and the Muslim reactions to that interventionism...here are two articles of Ron Paul's from the Clinton years...he's been warning Americans for a long time about the eventual costs of our government's omnipresence in the Middle East

Many Americans believe President Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan was nothing more than a scene from the recent movie "Wag the Dog." I have been asked by the media if I agreed. My answer has been simple: I really don't know

However, there is a much more important issue at stake, and that is an inconsistent and dangerous foreign policy that we have for years followed in the Middle East.

The natural tendency for all Americans is to want to quickly retaliate against anyone who would dare try to kill American citizens. And that is, of course, understandable. But if this in reality makes things much worse and doesn't come close to punishing those responsible, then it may well be a serious mistake on our part.

A few facts to remember:

First, prior to the terrorist attacks on Tanzania and Kenya, two prominent Arabic newspapers, printed in London, reported that an extremist Islamic Jihad vowed revenge against the United States for capturing three Islamic fundamentalists who were promoting Albanian separatism in Kosovo. Why we did this should prompt a serious discussion regarding our policy in that region.

Next, Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan "Freedom Fighters." Even then, bin Laden let it be known that his people resented all imperialism, whether from the Soviets or the United States.

Finally, the region's Muslims see America as the imperialist invader. They have deeply held religious beliefs, and in their desire for national sovereignty many see America as a threatening menace. America's presence in the Middle East, most flagrantly demonstrated with troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, is something many Muslims see as defiling their holy land. Many Muslims --and this is what makes an extremist like bin Laden so popular -- see American policy as identical to Israel's policy; an affront to them that is rarely understood by most Americans.

Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it's the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice -- terror.
--Ron Paul, Aug. 24, 1998

"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog

In recent weeks we have seen politicians and media personalities begin to beat the drums of war. While the overthrow of Iraq's Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly be a positive event for that nation and the world, those who have fervently called for American involvement and intervention have misunderstood the problems and ignored the costs.

Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs.

Regardless of how we may judge the merits of each war or occupation over the past 1000 years, the Arab mind is deeply influenced by the history of Roman, European, and now American meddling. Even the current borders between Middle Eastern countries have been imposed and enforced by outsiders without regard to the history of the region. This is not to argue who is right or who is wrong in each dispute but to emphasize the long-standing nature of the conflicts in the region that prevents a solution coming from the West. Arabs see U.N. policy as U.S. policy, and believe it to be anti-Arab, something that U.S. bombs only re-enforce.

There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can't afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region's huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.

The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a "cheap" war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the "price" innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers.
--Ron Paul, Nov. 24, 1997

Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace

A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East.

Instead of taking on each point I disagree with (although I reserve the right to do so later), I would like to know what it is that Ron Paul thinks would happen if the United States, as he suggested in 1997, declared its neutrality in January 2009, and withdrew from the Middle East. Does Paul sincerely believe there is a policy that would "protect American security and promote...friendship with all nations"? Does he think Al Qaeda would just leave the U.S. alone?

Is that what YOU think would happen?

I don't know who it is that underlined #10 with red ink, but it doesn't make a maddog bit of sense to believe it was McCollum.
Neither do I. Since it is up at "War Stories" I would presume it was somebody associated with that show.
I don't see that it matters one whit who underlined it in red.

As to my stance it is my belief that the sanctions and embargoes were the tipping point for Japan. Our actions, our foreign policy, were critical in Japan making the decision to attack us. Hitler didn't want the US brought into the war at that time. He would've preferred Japan attack Russian and British interests instead.