I have no idea what actions you are referring to, but the question is, "Are the actions of these 'people, groups and nations' legitimate?" Hitler arose in Germany due, in part, to the settlement reached in 1918 to end WWI. Are you excusing the Nazis for their actions? Should they be blamed and held accountable for their actions in your distorted world view?
So bin Laden hates us because we’re over there? Isn’t that essentially what Dr. Paul said in a previous debate?
No, here is what he said in the May 15 debate:
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
Ron Paul's distorted view of history, his assigning moral equivalency to bin Laden and China, and his simplistic belief that they US should eliminate its presence around the globe and our problems will go away are pure BS. We have global strategic national interests. The idea that we should listen to a terrorist leader like bin Laden and abide by his views is nonsense.
We were enforcing no-fly zones in Iraq for a decade to prevent Saddam from inflicting casualties on his own people and in implementing the Gulf War agreement with Iraq soigned at the end of hostilities. We and most of the countries in the world were part of coalition that removed Iraq from Kuwait, a sovereign country that was seized and plundered by Saddam regime.
And why did the revolution take place in Iran? We (the CIA) put the Shah in power in the late 1940’s. Let’s see...a lot of oil, border with the Soviet Union, and the perceived need to control the spread of communism and save all that oil...looked like a slam-dunk at the time.
I won't go too much into the history of Iran, but there were a number of strategic reasons why the Allies went into Iran during WWII and replaced Reza Shah with his son. On the eve of WWII, Nazi Germany was Iran's biggest trading partner.
At the outbreak of World War II, Iran declared its neutrality, but the country was soon invaded by both Britain and the Soviet Union. Britain had been annoyed when Iran refused Allied demands that it expel all German nationals from the country. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Allies urgently needed to transport war matériel across Iran to the Soviet Union, an operation that would have violated Iranian neutrality. As a result, Britain and the Soviet Union simultaneously invaded Iran on August 26, 1941, the Soviets from the northwest and the British across the Iraqi frontier from the west and at the head of the Persian Gulf in the south. Resistance quickly collapsed. Reza Shah knew the Allies would not permit him to remain in power, so he abdicated on September 16 in favor of his son, who ascended the throne as Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Shah and several members of his family were taken by the British first to Mauritius and then to Johannesburg, South Africa, where Reza Shah died in July 1944.
After WWII ended in 1945, the US and British withdrew but the Soviets stayed on longer and developed close ties with the Tudeh Party [Communist Party]. The Soviets were after Iranian oil concessions. In April 1945 the government signed an oil agreement with the Soviet Union; in May, partly as a result of United States, British, and UN pressure, Soviet troops withdrew from Iranian territory. Soviet influence diminished further in 1947, when Iran and the United States signed an agreement providing for military aid and for a United States military advisory mission to help train the Iranian army. In February 1949, the Tudeh was blamed for an abortive attempt on the shah's life, and its leaders fled abroad or were arrested. The party was banned.
Of course the Shah, although a great ally of the US was not Mr. Congeniality with regards to his own population. But he was OUR GUY so we kept him in power. It was just a matter of time before he was ousted. We tended to establish and keep guys like that in power a lot after World War II.
US foreign policy, like every other country's, is about advcancing our national interests. We must sometimes deal with less than savory leaders to do that. Moreover, we were involved with the Cold War, which was at it height in the 1950s and 1960s. We were concerned about Soviet and Communist influence in Iran, which borders the Soviet Union. The Shah had many faults, but his rule was far more democratic and "congenial" than that of Khomeini and the -mullahs. At one time there were more women in Iran's parliament than in our own Congress. You could buy Playboy on newstands in Tehran. Israel had a trade mission in Iran. We had more than 70,000 Americans in Iran and there were more than 50,000 Iranian students in America, the most of any country in the world. We also had important listening stations on the Caspian monitoring Soviet nuclear tests.
I was stationed in Iran 1977-79. The US and Jimmy Carter's foreign policy emphasizing human rights greased the skids for the Shah's removal. US government pressure and advice prevented the Shah from using Savak and force to put down the incipient Revolution that was composed of the Bazzaries [business leaders], mullahs, and intelligentsia, most of whom were in exile in the West including in the US, e.g., Yazdi. Carter and Vance believed that the Shah could be removed and the new, more democratic Iran could be dealt with without affecting US national interests. They were very wrong. Khomeini hijacked the Revolution putting the mullahs in control much to the dismay of the Bazzaries and the Intelligentsia. Many of the them were killed or fled.
We and the Iranians would be far better off with the Shah still in power. Khomeini spawed the militant fundamentalist Islamic movement, which gave rise to the likes of bin Laden. We now have the specter of a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Kashmir and Chechnya are essentially “turf wars” where one group kicks everyone else out. It doesn’t matter what the group identity is (religious, ethnic, etc.) it only matters that only their group wins.
You need to read your history. Islam is behind these "turf wars" as was the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh [former East Pakistan.] Chechnyans are fighting alongside AQ. They have been found in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Kosovo.
And you never found an example in China or South America to tout...
I tire of the tediousness of your arguments. OK. Here is an example of Islamic influence and problems associated with China
Islam on march south of border
That’s a very good question. For a truly intriguing (and unfortunately long-winded) answer you need to go back to 1980 when the Iran-Iraq War started. One of the reasons concerned control of the Shatt-el-Arab waterway which divides the two countries. Iran wanted the border to be down the middle of the river (”thalweg” principle) while Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein) wanted the entire width of the waterway.Along the way to maybe 100,000 deaths on each side we (the US) decided to help the Iraqis out in order to defeat Iran.
Iraq invaded Iran. At the time of the invasion, Iran still held our hostages. In terms of supporting Iraq with intelligence, we believed that Iraq was the lesser of two evils and the fact that both were bleeding themselves dry duirng this 8 years of conflict, was a perceived benefit.
Hence my comments about playing games with both sides, but I digress...
The world isn't black and white, it is various shades of gray. We were allies of Stalin in order to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. More often than not, in terms of foreign policy, you must choose between the lesser of two evils and what is best for US national interests. It is called reality, not the make believe world that Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter live in.
So, about Iraq invading Kuwait? We sent a five-member congressional delegation led by Senator Bob Dole to explain our concern over possible WMD development in April 1990. There was also the mishandled meeting Saddam had with Ambassador Glaspie that, for one reason or another, allowed him to believe that there would be no US involvement if he invaded Kuwait. This was probably reinforced by comments made by State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly who stressed that the U.S. had no defense treaty with Kuwait and no special defense commitment to it. These statements were made on July 24 and July 31, 1990 - days prior to the invasion. Saddam gambled that we would not interfere and lost. But he had the presence of mind to at least inquire about our intentions - he did not do that with any other country. We came to Kuwait’s defense (no small feat there - what a monumental PR blitz!) even though they were not a democracy and bailed them out.
I was posted in Saudia Arabia 1987-92. Your description of events is flawed. Do you believe that we should have allowed Iraq's aggression to stand and permitted them to control Kuwait? They also crossed into Saudi Arabia at al Karj. Do you think that we have strategic national interests in the Middle East? If so, how do you propose that we advance them?
The point here is that part of the reason we’re involved in Iraq as we speak has to do with our failure in Iran and the need to “get even” with the help of a dictator with whom we previously had no use.
Our failure in Iran was pushing the Shah out of power to the detriment of our own national interests.
As far as I know the “no-fly zones” were not a UN-proposed or sponsored event. Only the US decided to impose the zones
The US and UK established the no-fly zones to prevent the mass murder of the Kurds in the North and the Sh'ia in the South. Were you against the no-fly zones? The inspectors?
My concern is that our government at times likes to impose its moral values on others whether they like it or not.
We don't impose them, but we do advocate the values of freedom and democracy and have done so for almost our entire existence as a nation. We prepare an annual human rights report on every nation in the world highlighting problems and weaknesses.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more." --JFK Inaugural Address 1989.
Another problem I see is that commercial interests tend to drive our foreign and domestic policy too much.
We are the world's largest economy by a large margin. We are the engine of the global economy. Our prosperity depends on the protection of our interests around the world. I don't know how you quantify "too much," but I do know that we can't withdraw from the global economy and growing interdependence with the rest of the countries of the world.
As far as us protecting others in the region from another attack from Iraq - who else had Saddam ever threatened? Even with our help he could only manage a draw with Iran. Had he known about retaliation for Kuwait he would have stayed home. And in his war with Iran his objective was control of the Shatt-el-Arab waterway, not conquest of Iran.
Saddam had invaded two of his neighbors. He wanted to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq. He used WMD against Iran and the Kurds. He was interested in acquring nuclear weapons. The Israelis had taken out his first attempt, but Saddam was intent on getting a nuclear weapon and the money to do it. He had grandiose plans to make Iraq the head of the "Arab nation." Saddam was a mass murdered who killed over 300,000 of his countrymen. Are you suggesting that the world would be better off with Saddam in power? That we shouldn't have intervened in his takeover of Kuwait? You Paulistas constantly amaze me.
Our military presence in Asia is almost nonexistent save for the US Navy and troops still stationed in Korea. China presents a distinct dilemma as far as Taiwan is concerned. Will our economy at some point be held hostage if China decides to invade Taiwan?
LOL. You left out our presence in Japan [more troops than in South Korea], Guam, and Central Asia. The Seventh Fleet represents a substantial presence in terms of capability and firepower. Are you suggesting that we should not come to the aid of Taiwan if China tries to take it over by force?
There are some places in the world whose culture is so different as to result in constant friction. The Middle East is one such area. Were it not for the relatively cheap oil we would not be there now.
We import 60% of our oil. It is not a matter of "cheap" oil, but rather the reality that our economy as well as the world's depends on the free flow of oil from the Middle East, which supplies about one-third of the globe's needs. Oil is a fungible, global commodity. Three of the four largest suppliers of oil to the US are Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Saudi Arabia is the third largest. But it really doesn't matter where we get our oil from. We are in a global competition with the rest of the world for energy. And demand is rising with the growing affluence of China and India. The US demand is also increasing. We have added 100 million people since 1970 and will add another 52 million in the next 23 years or the equivalent of the current population of the UK.
Ron Paul's world view is naive and dangerous. He is a fool who's simplistic views find reasonance with other fools. Fortunately, their numbers are few as we will find out in the upcoming primaries and straw polls.
For the benefit of us tedious people what exactly is our national interest? Please be specific and quote the appropriate politician, executive order, policy memo, law or any other pundit you care to.
As for my “flawed description of events” in 1987 to 1992 please say exactly what is incorrect. I do not recall quoting Mrs. Glaspie or Saddam as to their meeting but Mrs. Tutweiler’s and Mr. Kelly’s comments are on record - specifically Mr. Kelly in testimony to Congress.
Yes Iraq went into Saudi Arabia briefly - are you implying that Saddam was going to invade them as well? Really? Based on what? The fact is that Saddam did not go into Kuwait until AFTER he talked to us first. Mixed signals, wrong impression, tacit approval - who knows - but the result was that Saddam invaded Kuwait and believed he had no opposition from us. While you were posted in Saudi Arabia did Saddam consult with any of his neighbors for their views prior to his invasion? Did he talk to Britain, France, Russia or anyone else? If you have documentation, sworn testimony or any other relevant facts to dispute that very basic timeline then please let us all know.
And while we have the largest economy does that mean we can do whatever we want wherever we want when it suits our “national interest”? If that is the case then our national interest can best be described as arrogant. Is that your world view? What is your standard?
Our military presence in Asia is almost nonexistent save for the US Navy and troops still stationed in Korea.
“LOL. You left out our presence in Japan [more troops than in South Korea], Guam, and Central Asia. The Seventh Fleet represents a substantial presence in terms of capability and firepower. Are you suggesting that we should not come to the aid of Taiwan if China tries to take it over by force?”
Absolutely correct on the naval forces but that is the bulk of our troop strength. Ground troops (US Marines) stationed on Okinawa and Guam number around 10,000, plus or minus, which is about one division. That represents twenty percent of the total number of forces stationed in Japan. I neither suggested, implied nor stated that we should not defend Taiwan. US commercial interests now make the stakes higher for us than for China. It’s also more difficult to stop an airborne and/or amphibious assault from mainland China with primarily air power.
“Ron Paul’s world view is naive and dangerous. He is a fool who’s simplistic views find reasonance with other fools.”
I would take simpler to deliberately deceptive and arrogant any day. And is name calling really necessary to advance your argument?