I'll Buy Mad Mike A Christmas Present If He Doesn't Like This Video. Really. (Or: You Like Ron Paul, Except On Foreign Policy.)

[SnyderShrugged]

bumping this thread (and the vid in the OP) since its much clearer on RP's actual stance on FP and not so much the hyperbole and assumptions that we see in another thread.

[PeterMP]

No they probably wouldn't but they sure would not have the support that they do. They probably would not have such a ready supply of people willing to blow themselves up just to get at us.

The truth is out these populations in these countries will not accept our bases or our puppets. They know our agenda, and will never trust us as long as we continue to pretend we are not up their but.

But if they do not feel threatened its quite possible that they many more will choose more peaceful routes despite the Caliphate dreams of many islamic leaders. Threatening leaders mean nothing without a fanatical following.

All these Arabs and muslims are on the internet now, information is available. Us pulling out of the middle east will send the message that the people that many people in the world still love, have taken back power from the heavy handed interventionists who have brought us there in such force. We need to lead by example, what other choice do we have? This war is made not to end. If not how could it possibly? You want to pull out, with what and whose ideology will you do so with your vote?

We have all the power in the world to respond to any threat out there will you not admit this? Will you admit that there is nothing Ron Paul can do to change the fact that we can still kick anybodies ass in the world, anywhere but in their own country, and probably there too if we try?

I moved this post to this thread from another thread so that it would be in a thread on topic.

Your post is contradictory. We are in a war that cannot be won, but we can beat anybody in the world?

The fact of the matter is that their are areas all of the world where people don't have anything to fear from us and yet have authortorian goverments or just poor goverments. Just look at Afghanistan. Even WITH out intervention there, there is no real argument that they had need to fear us prior to 9/11. Somolia is similar.

There isn't much that he can do in 4 years to affect our lead in military strength, but he can make it clear that it is not likely to be used, which would have the same effect.

---------- Post added January-2nd-2012 at 09:08 AM ----------

bumping this thread (and the vid in the OP) since its much clearer on RP's actual stance on FP and not so much the hyperbole and assumptions that we see in another thread.

I watched the video. I found it kind of vague. I didn't see anything in it that I thought argued that we needed to pull out of S. Korea, Japan, and Europe, which I'm pretty sure are all Ron Paul beliefs.

Do you want to point out a post in particular in the other thread that most badly represents his foreign policy veiws?

[SnyderShrugged]

I moved this post to this thread from another thread so that it would be in a thread on topic.

Your post is contradictory. We are in a war that cannot be won, but we can beat anybody in the world?

The fact of the matter is that their are areas all of the world where people don't have anything to fear from us and yet have authortorian goverments or just poor goverments. Just look at Afghanistan. Even WITH out intervention there, there is no real argument that they had need to fear us prior to 9/11. Somolia is similar.

There isn't much that he can do in 4 years to affect our lead in military strength, but he can make it clear that it is not likely to be used, which would have the same effect.

---------- Post added January-2nd-2012 at 09:08 AM ----------

I watched the video. I found it kind of vague. I didn't see anything in it that I thought argued that we needed to pull out of S. Korea, Japan, and Europe, which I'm pretty sure are all Ron Paul beliefs.

Do you want to point out a post in particular in the other thread that most badly represents his foreign policy veiws?

Pretty much any post that accuses isolationism or military weakness would fall into that genre. His views are non-interventionist (ala speak softly and carry a big stick).

I think you missed the whole point of the video (or didnt watch it entirely) if you believe its limited to the conversation of base closings in foreign countries. I believe the spirit of the vid was more regarding blowback and how often we have been the root cause of our own war issues based on reactions to our interventionism.

[twa]

Wasn't the fact we were not using that stick well a major contributing factor in Osama's thinking?

a paper tiger is not feared ,nor the consequences

[SnyderShrugged]

Wasn't the fact we were not using that stick well a major contributing factor in Osama's thinking?

a paper tiger is not feared ,nor the consequences

Not according to the CIA and Osama himself it wasnt.

He specifically said that the attacks were due to our interventionism in the ME regions. The former Bin Laden chief of the CIA also says this is the case.

[twa]

?...both in interviews and intel,the notion they could get away with opposing/striking us was a major driver

EVEN in the decision to hit the towers it was discussed

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html#ixzz1iJRcz3p8

[SnyderShrugged]

?...both in interviews and intel,the notion they could get away with opposing/striking us was a major driver

EVEN in the decision to hit the towers it was discussed

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ...

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html#ixzz1iJRcz3p8

I trust you read the very first sentence?

Here is what Sheuer says...

[twa]

SS, they still hold a grudge from centuries ago as well.

there is always a excuse,but not fearing the consequence is the enabler

our actions after 9/11 have exposed their lies and deceit...perhaps we are in a position now to simply allow non-intervention,but you better make sure they understand the stick is ready

Weakness does not dissuade attack

[SnyderShrugged]

SS, they still hold a grudge from centuries ago as well.

there is always a excuse,but not fearing the consequence is the enabler

our actions after 9/11 have exposed their lies and deceit...perhaps we are in a position now to simply allow non-intervention,but you better make sure they understand the stick is ready

Weakness does not dissuade attack

agreed, and nothing is weaker than a bankrupt economy of an overextended superpower. Ron Paul doesnt desire weakness, he desires common sense military might.

[twa]

agreed, and nothing is weaker than a bankrupt economy of an overextended superpower. Ron Paul doesnt desire weakness, he desires common sense military might.

I agree, which is why I find him tolerable....I'm not sure many of his present fans will tolerate even common sense military might though.

common sense ain't too common at times

[Hubbs]

Re-posting this from the other thread....

As soon as you present me with evidence that the Florida state government and a great many Floridians were aware that the hijackers were Islamic terrorists, I will consider asking my representatives in Congress to invade Florida.

Oh, horse****. I'm sorry to respond in such an aggressive manner, but I just can't stand this line of reasoning after ten years. Osama bin Laden could have planned 9/11 in Somalia without the explicit backing of the government there, in Pakistan with the explicit opposition of the government there, or in Afghanistan with the explicit support of the government there. There is absolutely nothing within the creation of a plan to use box cutters to hijack planes and then fly those planes into buildings that requires said plan to be created within the borders of any given country. In fact, the first plan to bring down the World Trade Center was not plotted in Afghanistan, and again, the true "mastermind" of 9/11 was living in the Czech Republic when al Qaeda was shifting to the adopting of his plan. The only reason I'm bringing up Florida is because we've been told that we needed to invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11, because that's where the planning and training for 9/11 happened. This is a complete and total falsehood that has led to the loss of American lives, the spilling of American blood, and the spoiling of American treasure in the name of a cause that will not prevent another 9/11.

If the reason to invade Afghanistan is that certain people that had something to do with 9/11 lived in and received some form of training in Afghanistan, then we need to invade Florida because certain people who had much more to do with 9/11 lived in and received directly related training in Florida. Whether this training was a result of support or ignorance should be irrelevant when it comes to saving lives. Either we need to invade or we don't. And the correct position is that we don't, because the current leaders of al Qaeda could be planning one of about a hundred "new 9/11s" anywhere, plans that I can come up with in my own head, even though I'm not in Afghanistan. (Note to the FBI: I'm speaking in hypotheticals about scenarios that I worry about, not scenarios I support. So you don't need to create a profile about me now that your computers have flagged this post. I love my country, even when my government makes decisions that I think are bad. )

See above regarding Florida. I suspect that, if Osama had been living in Sudan in 2001 and established Sudan as Al Qaeda's principal "home base" in 2001, we would have invaded Sudan in 2001.

And that would have been just as dumb.

I never thought I would see you use the "all or nothing" argument (that's a compliment to you and a dig at the above post).

I'm not even sure what this means, but get ready, because I'm going to use it again in that other thread regarding Korea. Both pulling out of our bases and permanently stationing an additional 300,000 troops in Korea would make more sense than keeping 30,000 there.

Killing Osama bin Laden with SEALs would likely have been much more difficult without the use of bases in Afghanistan. Abbottabad is several hundred miles from blue water (where carriers can operate) and, to my knowledge, we have no airbases outside Afghanistan that are "within range" of Abbottabad. We could still bomb Afghanistan, although it would be more difficult to do so since we wouldn't have airbases in Afghanistan, we would have far fewer, if any, drones loitering and identifying targets, and we would likely have less intelligence on enemy forces.

I'll grant you that reasonable minds will suggest we should not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 (even I am not 100% certain we should have done so). However, it's unreasonable to claim that we could just as easily locate, target, and kill suspected terrorists in Afghanistan without any bases "in country." I know you are claiming the former and I suspect you are claiming the latter as well.

This is an argument to invade another country for the specific purpose of having bases in said country. At this point, I think we've escaped all forms of rational thought. I will not, under any circumstances, support the invasion of another country, an invasion that will come with the deaths of countless Americans, for the purpose of having convient bases from which we can launch helicopter missions.

We had already put intelligence agents and special forces in Afghanistan who were locating al Qaeda operatives and killing them before we invaded. We happen to live in the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world, and when we really want to do something, we're uniquely capable of doing it. Invading another country because it would merely make a particular military action in yet another country easier is not a justifiable policy.

And we could have avoided collateral damage by relying more heavily on airstrikes from 40,000 feet?

The vast majority of the collateral damage deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq do not come on our specific missions to kill individual members of al Qaeda, they come in firefights that erupt between us and people who are attacking us simply because we're there. You can't occupy a nation for ten years without getting into countless battles over your occupation.

Blowback does not inexorably result from any action in the field of foreign affairs, which includes a lot more than bombing targets.

As long as the people who are aware of a violent action are also aware of the fact that it was the United States of America that committed said action, then yes, blowback is an inexorable result. It may take an incredibly small form, but it's there. You need look no further than our handling of the killing of Osama bin Laden, easily the most justifiable action of the entire War on Terror. Why did we dump his body out at sea? Because we didn't want him to be buried at any one spot. Why didn't we want that? Because it would make it easier for his supporters to create a culture of martyrdom, even though the number of people who are so very against us that they believe Osama bin Laden was a martyr probably number in the dozens. That's a type of blowback that we should always be willing to accept, because it would be preposterous not to. But there are people who exist that are angry about our killing of OBL.

An assassination squad isn't really the most effective either. Killing Bin Laden was very important symbollically, but would getting one guy really have stopped or deterred Al Qaeda?

We've killed a lot more than one guy with our special forces and intelligence agencies. I'm just using the most important guy as an example.

More, look how that very positive effort has impacted our relations with Pakistan (or shown it for what it is).

So, just to be clear, when it comes to invasion versus special forces missions, your argument is that our relations with Pakistan would have been harmed less if we had just invaded instead.

If we were going to kill OBL, we were going to anger Pakistan. We're only debating about how much we would have angered Pakistan, depending on which action we took. My stance is that going after an international organization by invading and occupying individual countries is not the best way to go about fighting said organization, and one of the reasons why is the deep and widespread anger generated by an invasion, even if it comes with toppling a dictator. You're right, some Pakistanis were mad after our OBL mission. So please describe the way we could have been sure to kill him without generating any anger whatsoever.

In addition, had Al Qaeda and the Taliban not been rendered impotent, the mission would have likely been impossible.

Completely disagree. Again, we were in Afghanistan before the invasion, in the form of the very people who killed OBL.

Going after Al Qaeda militarily, economically (freezing their bank assets), and through intelligence operations was a good idea.

It was initially was a good, a valid, and a justified idea. The decision to still be there is less certain. One thing history has shown us is that turning your a bully or a monster doesn't lead to a cessation of violence, but actually encourages more violence.

It's amazing how you can say these things while simultaneously arguing that our invasion and occupation was a good idea, relative to alternative policies.

[Jumbo]

Ok Hubbs. Now explain to me how your post is about Christmas. :mad:

:pfft:

[Hubbs]

Ok Hubbs. Now explain to me how your post is about Christmas. :mad:

:pfft:

:ols:

[PeterMP]

Pretty much any post that accuses isolationism or military weakness would fall into that genre. His views are non-interventionist (ala speak softly and carry a big stick).

I think you missed the whole point of the video (or didnt watch it entirely) if you believe its limited to the conversation of base closings in foreign countries. I believe the spirit of the vid was more regarding blowback and how often we have been the root cause of our own war issues based on reactions to our interventionism.

I'd be curious to see you point to a paritcular post. What is the line between non-intervention and isolationism based on the other thread.

I thought the point of the video was that some young guys believe that they know more about the Constitution than the people that the Constitution says is suppossed to interpert it- the Supreme Court.

I'd also be curious to know what you think in terms of Scheuer, who is prominantly featured in the video, has suggested that we need to restart the rendition programs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/28/arab-spring-intelligence-disaster-scheuer

If you are going to invoke that historical slogan, I'd be curious to know what you think of what good old Teddy w/ resepct to the Panama Canal.

[Madison Redskin]

Oh, horse****. I'm sorry to respond in such an aggressive manner, but I just can't stand this line of reasoning after ten years. Osama bin Laden could have planned 9/11 in Somalia without the explicit backing of the government there, in Pakistan with the explicit opposition of the government there, or in Afghanistan with the explicit support of the government there. There is absolutely nothing within the creation of a plan to use box cutters to hijack planes and then fly those planes into buildings that requires said plan to be created within the borders of any given country.

Do you know what I can’t stand? Humoring ****ing ridiculous arguments like “Well, the hijackers received training in Florida, so if you’re going to invade Afghanistan, then you must logically believe we should also invade Florida.” If you are going to make utterly ridiculous claims like that, I’m just gonna check out now.

[Larry]

Pretty much any post that accuses isolationism or military weakness would fall into that genre. His views are non-interventionist (ala speak softly and carry a big stick).

Not sure I agree with you, there.

To me, "non-interventionist" is "I think we should not have intervened in the following places, and I will resist calls for us to do so in similar, future situations". (And I agree with that part of his message.)

To me, "I think we should close almost all overseas military bases, and withdraw all forces to within the US" isn't "walk softly and carry a big stick", it's "I think we should pitch the big stick in the dumpster".

---------- Post added January-2nd-2012 at 04:20 PM ----------

Do you know what I can’t stand? Humoring ****ing ridiculous arguments like “Well, the hijackers received training in Florida, so if you’re going to invade Afghanistan, then you must logically believe we should also invade Florida.” If you are going to make utterly ridiculous claims like that, I’m just gonna check out now.

Can you come up with an actual distinction between the two?

I think I can.

Wasn't al Qaeda operating out of Tora Bora? Or was that the Taliban? (I confess that I don't remember.)

Assuming it was al Qaeda, then I would assert that there's a bit of a difference between "al Qaeda members, operating covertly, managed to penetrate the security of a US Community College and take a class", and Tora Bora, which I would assert would be more like the US Government handing over Fort Bragg and telling al Qaede that they have permission to use it as their global HQ and training center.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not sure I agree with you, there.

To me, "non-interventionist" is "I think we should not have intervened in the following places, and I will resist calls for us to do so in similar, future situations". (And I agree with that part of his message.)

To me, "I think we should close almost all overseas military bases, and withdraw all forces to within the US" isn't "walk softly and carry a big stick", it's "I think we should pitch the big stick in the dumpster".

Not when that "big stick" is leaning against your door frame as a weapon to bludgen an intruder its not. Currently, we keep our "big stick" in neighbors homes and many of them dont want it lying around there any more, but we pay them lots of money that the rest of the family earns as bribes to do so.

[Larry]

Not when that "big stick" is leaning against your door frame as a weapon to bludgen an intruder its not. Currently, we keep our "big stick" in neighbors homes and many of them dont want it lying around there any more, but we pay them lots of money that the rest of the family earns as bribes to do so.

Those bases are a large part of that stick.

There's a reason why, during Desert Storm, almost all of our casualties went to Germany. It's because we had a base in Germany, with a really big, modern, hospital. That base in Germany might have been built, there, so we could defend Germany from the Russians. But it gives us abilities in all kinds of places. (I'll grant that I'm really ignorant of such things, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if that hospital isn't our "go to" hospital for the entire eastern hemisphere.)

There's a reason why we have a base in Diego Garcia, an island where the entire island is a military base. It's because having a base in the Indian Ocean allows us to conduct and sustain military operations in the Indian Ocean.

Are all of our bases essential to our ability to project force? Please. (For example, I could see an argument that it really helps us to have a base in either Japan or South Korea. But does it really give us much to have both?)

Are all of them useless? Again, please.

[Madison Redskin]

Can you come up with an actual distinction between the two?

I think I can.

Wasn't al Qaeda operating out of Tora Bora? Or was that the Taliban? (I confess that I don't remember.)

Assuming it was al Qaeda, then I would assert that there's a bit of a difference between "al Qaeda members, operating covertly, managed to penetrate the security of a US Community College and take a class", and Tora Bora, which I would assert would be more like the US Government handing over Fort Bragg and telling al Qaede that they have permission to use it as their global HQ and training center.

I can come up with numerous distinctions between Florida and Afghanistan, as they relate to Al Qaeda training activities and Al Qaeda more broadly. I didn't think I'd need to spell them out, but seeing as how this thread has devolved, it appears I need to do so or simply walk. I am going to go with simply walking. Have fun.

[Hubbs]

Do you know what I can’t stand? Humoring ****ing ridiculous arguments like “Well, the hijackers received training in Florida, so if you’re going to invade Afghanistan, then you must logically believe we should also invade Florida.” If you are going to make utterly ridiculous claims like that, I’m just gonna check out now.

And you seem to be of the assumption that if a line of reasoning results in a ridiculous conclusion, then that line of reasoning must inherently be incorrect. So, God forbid anything that's counter-intuitive happens to be true.

But we can take Florida out of it for the moment. Please, if it's so preposterous, explain to me why the best course of action was to invade and occupy Afghanistan because it openly supported al Qaeda's efforts to "train" its lower members, even though this training is mostly unrelated to 9/11, and because it's where many of the leaders of al Qaeda lived, even though they can just leave, but that same course of action is not the best solution for Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Pakistan, where rather than openly allowing such activities, those governments are merely incapable of preventing them, uninterested in whether or not they occur, or quietly support them while publicly saying that they don't. Go ahead. The floor is yours. I want to know why we shouldn't invade and occupy Somalia. Make your case, unless of course you think that we should.

---------- Post added January-2nd-2012 at 05:12 PM ----------

I can come up with numerous distinctions between Florida and Afghanistan, as they relate to Al Qaeda training activities and Al Qaeda more broadly. I didn't think I'd need to spell them out, but seeing as how this thread has devolved, it appears I need to do so or simply walk. I am going to go with simply walking. Have fun.

I can come up with a distinction, too. One of them was actually the place where the 9/11 hijackers received the training that was most relevant to their mission.

We invaded the other one.

[SnyderShrugged]

edit

not sure what happened there. cant even recall what I intended to say! LOL

[DjTj]

I can come up with a distinction, too. One of them was actually the place where the 9/11 hijackers received the training that was most relevant to their mission.

We invaded the other one.

I think we've been doing a pretty good job of occupying and controlling Florida, although it requires about the same number of troops as Afghanistan.

Military personnel in Florida:

Army 2,982

Navy & Marine Corps 23,223

Air Force 24,526

Coast Guard 4,757

Active Duty Military 50,731

Reserve and National Guard 53,902

Total Personnel 109,390

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/statefacts/blfl.htm

[twa]

I think we've been doing a pretty good job of occupying and controlling Florida,]

but are we winning the hearts and minds battle there?

[Prosperity]

but are we winning the hearts and minds battle there?

best to nuke it from orbit just to be sure

[drtdrums]

Just a note: Explosions in the Sky are awesome.

To the point -- Of course our foreign policy has consequences, and Paul is, in many ways, correct in his summation of our history. But I do not feel that he would react properly to a threat to Israel or any other nation once in office. He would refuse involvement, and that is unacceptable to anyone who views Israel as the cornerstone of peace and democracy in the Middle East and believes that the threat to her is very real.