Why Ron Paul Is Wrong.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Paul may not be entirely right, but he's certainly partially right. The cult in question is diametrically opposed to democracy, always was, probably always will be, just like the other, popular middle eastern cult was in the dark ages. A large portion of the population of the world gets 100% of their "news" and world view via religious indoctrination, and that is a sad, scary commentary.

Hiding from them won't change that. The young Pakistanis that terrorized Mumbai in 2009 were rural farmers and goat herders, who were educated, armed and sent out to terrorize. Some of the 9/11 perpetrators lived in the U.S. for over a year. They didn't envy the U.S., they wanted to destroy it.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Sure some of them envy our standard of living (positions at least), but they're also conflicted about the religion that's been beaten into them since birth. This is not unlike America's fascination with sex in politics, media, marketing etc., and simultaneous urge to repress it.

In most cases, it's not envy, it's pure hatred.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

But, to say "being there" hasn't contributed to getting attacked is like saying that swimming in the Amazon had nothing to do with a piranha biting your ass.

Fact is, piranhas have been found alive and well in waterways in Florida and Louisiana (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/outp...a-piranha.html). That's what happens when you don't keep dangers at arm's length.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I wonder why anyone who wants us to stop being the world's "rent a cop / meals on wheels" combo gets immediately labeled as an "isolationist"? It seriously makes me wonder what the hells wrong with isolationism.

WWII shall forever be the benchmark for what's wrong with 'isolationism'.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Bring 'em home I say, put them on the borders and re-establish the deterrence of our non-conventional armaments.

Technology is a defense. It's reduced the number of U.S. casualties in recent wars and it has enabled U.S. forces to inflict disproportionate casualties on the enemy while simultaneously reducing 'collateral damage'. However, to date (since WWI, if you will), cruise missiles, predator drones, missiles, planes and bombers haven't won any wars. It's always taken ground units.

The Philippines, Korea and Japan have heretofore served as staging areas for the Far East. England, Germany, Italy, Yemen, Qatar, etc., have served as staging areas for Europe, N Africa, the Middle East, SW Asia, etc. Not having a secure staging/support area is like trying to drive your car to New York City without having any gas stations and mechanics en route.

[Iaintliein]

I.B.
While I'm grateful for your service and respectful of your opinion. America was not in isolation before getting into WWII. You know as well as I do that our embargo of oil to Japan and our destroyers actively chasing U-boats before Pearl Harbor gives to the lie to that argument. Understand, I am not in favor of the kind of disarmament that went on before WWII, in fact, I'm not in favor of any disarmament.

And staying at home with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked isn't "hiding" in my book, it's minding our own business.

But I am in favor of shortening supply lines, removing "trip-wire" forces around the world and staying the hell out of other peoples' business.

While our intervention in Korea ceraintly helped Korea, it's hard to figure how it helped us (other than the lovely ladies at the local AMPs, of course). Iraq is certainly better off (for now), but it's doubtful that they can hold onto what's been given to them for long.

Otherwise, at the end of the day, Vietnam is communist, Grenada is still unimportant, Panama is only important because of the canal (which our intervention had nothing to do with), the former Yugoslavia is still full of muslims who will continue to undermine every other group there, and serbs and croations who will fight them (and each other) any way they can (nothing ever stays settled in the Balkans), Kuwait is certainly better off, but, as far as I know, still charges us market rate for crude, and Afghanistan is simply a joke in terms of ever being a nation at all.

It can be argued that Vietnam did prevent the other dominios from falling, and I've read at least one account that our resolve so disturbed the Soviets as to prompt them to seek their own "blooding" in Afghanistan. But, even though the Soviet Union fell, Russia is still no friend, and still has a strong totalitarian undercurrent.

What all of this has gotten the United States, is 1) Far too many patriot graves and scarred warriors, 2) Beyond broke. 3) Exposed to far more vendettas than acts of gratitude around the world.

As for using the military to respond to every earthquake etc., I'm sorry, that just isn't what it's for and there is zero Constitutional support for that.

Of course, I will grant the shortcoming of my analogy, it's a pretty tough form of argument to make, not withstanding, I'm sure you understand the underlying meaning. Wars are never started, nor fought for the reasons the politicians and historians spout, everyone fights for their own reasons, and a great many of those who fought us in Iraq and fight us in Afghanistan today do so for no other reason than the fact that we are there.

My point is that there is a middle ground between the global footprint we have to day and the America of 1914.

[yaddayadda]

Good thread.

I do think Nicaragua and the Spanish American War were trumped up chest thumping by politicos. It was not a national effort and we did not put all our resources into fighting either one. Mexico was a joke, two major battles and that was it. Mexico gave up so quick nobody would take charge of the country....we could of kept it for all anyone in Mexico cared....wish we would have.
But I hear you and respect your side of the coin. Vietnam and Iraq are two wars I was in and neither actually accomplished anything that Non-Intervention would have accomplished. I am no peace-nick, I love John Wayne, Gary Cooper and all that stuff....But I know when I have been lied to, Vietnam was no threat to us....either directly or by proxy.

Iraq has been shown to have been a huge error, the people in Iraq would have figured it out for themselves a lot quicker (and I AGREE bloodier) but it would of been all their blood. We basically accomplished nothing. Free elections? Don't make me laugh, Arab democracy "One man, One vote, One time." When Bremer disbanded the Army and Police force, with absolutely nothing to take its place, that ended any hope of a peace after "Shock and Awe." Should have left the day after we captured Saadam, dropped him off at the Hague and kept on going.

We don't belong in Afghanistan (which I agree is not really a country), please explain how after ten years of occupation they actually grow MORE poppies for opium. What kind of screwed up deal is that? I mean we have the choice of supporting Religious Fanatics or Heroin Dealers...Wow......what a great place to put ourselves,

[dilbert firestorm]

[quote=yaddayadda;2061981]
I do think Nicaragua and the Spanish American War were trumped up chest thumping by politicos. It was not a national effort and we did not put all our resources into fighting either one. Mexico was a joke, two major battles and that was it. Mexico gave up so quick nobody would take charge of the country....we could of kept it for all anyone in Mexico cared....wish we would have.
/quote]

fyi, I agree too that we should have kept Mexico.

Why didn't we keep Mexico? simple, racism was a major factor.

the U.S. politicians didn't want to rule over a land that is half-indian and brown.

I think the anti-slavery elments were probably another factor in preventing a change in the balance of political power.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

We don't belong in Afghanistan (which I agree is not really a country), please explain how after ten years of occupation they actually grow MORE poppies for opium. What kind of screwed up deal is that? I mean we have the choice of supporting Religious Fanatics or Heroin Dealers...Wow......what a great place to put ourselves,

there was an article about this not too long about about the opium farming. apparently the culture of opium is too ingrained in Afghanistan and that is in spite of efforts to get farmers to grow other non-drug cash crops. In fact, many of them prefer the Taliban and migrate to their territory and grow opium crops and the Taliban get a cut of the farmers profit as protection racket.

[CuteOldGuy]

Dilbert, Yadda, thanks for your input on this thread. I'm actually learning something other than new ways to call someone a homosexual. Nice job!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Dilbert, Yadda, thanks for your input on this thread. I'm actually learning something other than new ways to call someone a homosexual. Nice job!

your welcome.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Cold War colored U.S. perceptions. Having France as an ally against the U.S.S.R. in Europe was considered more important than Vietnamese nationalism. Had Wilson or Truman truly listened to Hồ Chí Minh following WWI and WWII respectively, things might have been different. Hindsight certainly shows the French to be a poor ally, and they are why we fought in Vietnam. We saw our interest in preserving their interest. BTW, I honor your service. I went in ’72, but did not go to Vietnam.

its not necessarily the cold war colouring U.S. perceptions. WWI & WWII had a factor in altering those perceptions. as a result, the U.S. seems to be doing things that favor & benefit European interests at the expense of American interests which may not be compatible with Europe.

Vietnam & Libya wars were the result of undue European influences on American foreign policy. the U.S. did not have a dog in both of those wars, but did it anyway.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

its not necessarily the cold war colouring U.S. perceptions. WWI & WWII had a factor in altering those perceptions. as a result, the U.S. seems to be doing things that favor & benefit European interests at the expense of American interests which may not be compatible with Europe.

Vietnam & Libya wars were the result of undue European influences on American foreign policy. the U.S. did not have a dog in both of those wars, but did it anyway.

It was Cold War perceptions, otherwise you've restated my argument.

• The U.S. had no interests in Iran other than to support Britain in Iran, because the U.S. needed bases and allies in Europe against the U.S.S.R.
• The U.S. had no interests in Vietnam other than to support France in Vietnam, because the U.S. needed allies in Europe against the U.S.S.R. With the withdrawal of French troops, the U.S. became involved in a proxy war with the U.S.S.R. and China.

The U.S.S.R. was the real threat to U.S. and Western interests during the Cold War. The coup in Iran and the war in Vietnam were means to an end and not an 'end' unto themselves.

[IIFFOFRDB]

One problem. Isreal? Not mentioned one time?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

One problem. Isreal? Not mentioned one time?

You are correct, but I haven't had time to properly address Iaintlien and yaddayadda regarding 'embargoes' and 'Pearl Harbor'. Maybe tomorrow.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

One problem. Isreal? Not mentioned one time?

the Suez canal war which was as joint effort between Britain, France & Israel..It was the only time that the U.S. under Eisenhower did not side with Europe on this and actually forced their allies to end the fight and return the Sinai land to Egypt.

Interesting thing is Eisenhower's remarks about the Suez Canal war is that he told an number of insiders including Nixon that he regretted making the Suez Canal decision.

he made those comments after his book was published and before his death.

[Pink_flamingo]

Ron Paul is right! The proof is the conspiracy of silence in the media, denying Ron Paul the name recognition. Look and the Dallas M. News, listen to the radio: they talk about all presidential candidates, including Rick Perry - the shame of Texas; but when it comes to Ron Paul's name - it stuck in their throat and can not come out. The only time Dallas M. News mention Ron Paul is in the context they perceive negative - like Las Vegas prostitutes supporting Ron Paul !
It's easy to understand why they hate Ron Paul - he is threatening to take a piece of pie out of the mouth of military-industrial complex, which used to rob America and feed the media with the crumbles from their table.
Ron Paul is right, and he stands for all of us !

[I B Hankering]

I don't wish to rehash previously stated talking points, but I do wish to discuss these remarks.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I.B.
While I'm grateful for your service and respectful of your opinion.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

America was not in isolation before getting into WWII. You know as well as I do that our embargo of oil to Japan and our destroyers actively chasing U-boats before Pearl Harbor gives to the lie to that argument.

FDR and several of his advisors were anxious about the war in Europe and believed the U.S. would be drawn into that war. But, FDR did not want a war with Japan. He understood that going to war with Japan would impede any war effort against Nazi Germany, and that’s what FDR’s civilian and military advisors were telling him.

A study of FDR’s actions in the years 1939 to 1941 reveals he was preparing for war with Germany; not Japan. FDR tried to organize an anti-fascist hegemony in the Western hemisphere, but it was weak.

Yes, FDR did send U.S. war vessels into harm's way. He did use U.S. war vessels to escort merchant ships halfway across the Atlantic. The U.S.S. Reuben James (DD 245) was on such a mission when it was attacked by a German U-Boat as it was performing escort duty between Newfoundland and Iceland. The ship sank killing over 110 of the crew. But that was in the Atlantic.

The U.S. had interests in the Pacific as well. The Philippines were a U.S. colony. The U.S. had trade interests in China and in the Dutch East Indies. Ninety percent of U.S. tin and rubber were imported from the Dutch East Indies.In 1940, Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull warned Japan that tin and rubber products imported from the Dutch East Indies were important to the U.S. economy; thus, putting Japan on notice the U.S. would take action if that source were threatened by Japanese imperialism. Subsequently, Japan entered into the Tripartite Pact with Hitler and Mussolini, more-or-less committing itself to be on a collision course with the U.S.

Japanese imperialism in China and Indochina was met with U.S. embargoes to coerce Japan from its militaristic path, but to no avail. Subsequently, Japan made the first overt strikes of war. The U.S. had exhausted every diplomatic tool to keep peace. So it's no lie to say the Japanese were set on war, and nothing but the complete abandonment of U.S. interests in the Pacific could have placated the Japanese.

Originally Posted by yaddayadda

Good thread.

I do think Nicaragua and the Spanish American War were trumped up chest thumping by politicos. It was not a national effort and we did not put all our resources into fighting either one. Mexico was a joke, two major battles and that was it. Mexico gave up so quick nobody would take charge of the country....we could of kept it for all anyone in Mexico cared....wish we would have.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, taken separately, represent a 100% maximum effort. Same is true of Vietnam. All three of those wars are or were fought as a side show. The Spanish -American War involved the U.S. in a guerrilla war in the Philippines that did not end until 1913 - fifteen years of fighting. Those five wars (considering the Mexican-American War as well) have more in common than differences, and they all reflect approximately the same effort on the part of the U.S.