1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Ron Paul vs Giuliani who's view on foreign policy is right?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Meistro, Jun 10, 2007.

  1. Meistro

    Meistro New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At one of the presidential debates Guiliani replied to Ron Paul "They hate us for our religious freedoms and the freedoms we give our woman" and then demanded Ron Paul retract a statement he made about U.S. foreign policy causing 'blowback' against America.

    Did the U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia and the sanctions against Iraq as well as the early overthrow of the Iranian government contribute to the hatred which caused 9/11? Or do the terrorists hate us for our freedom? Also, if 'blowback' is real as the CIA and other experts claim, what impact does this have on Guiliani's Presidential campaign? Could this hurt him, underscoring perhaps his lack of understanding on foreign affairs and showing him as too provincial or naive?
     
  2. chad750

    chad750 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America's foreign policy has hurt us within the middle east starting with the end of WWII when we supported relocating most of the jews from europe back to Israel and helping them create the nation state of Israel. That is somewhat where it all began. We then helped install the shah in Iran and supported him until he was overthrown by the Ayatollah in 79' I believe. This is one reason Iran hates us. The rest of the Arab world isnt to happy that we always side with Israel as it has created jealousy among the Arab states since we supply Israel with arms and a lot of our best military hardware. Bin Laden and the rest of the fanatics in Al queda hate us because we are occupying Muslim land to include Saudi Arabia where Mecca is located which is the Muslim's holy city and because we support Israel.
    Now with that being said would it help if we pulled all troops from Muslim lands (Iraq, Afganistan,and Saudi Arabia) probably not much they would find some other excuse to be against us.
    Is Guiliani's campaign going to be hurt by this probably not because he is already hurting himself running republican when he should have ran democrat because that is what he is at heart. His non conservative thinking is what is going to hurt him with the republican constituency due to the fact that most will not see any difference between his platform and that of the Dems.
     
  3. chad750

    chad750 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America's foreign policy has hurt us within the middle east starting with the end of WWII when we supported relocating most of the jews from europe back to Israel and helping them create the nation state of Israel. That is somewhat where it all began. We then helped install the shah in Iran and supported him until he was overthrown by the Ayatollah in 79' I believe. This is one reason Iran hates us. The rest of the Arab world isnt to happy that we always side with Israel as it has created jealousy among the Arab states since we supply Israel with arms and a lot of our best military hardware. Bin Laden and the rest of the fanatics in Al queda hate us because we are occupying Muslim land to include Saudi Arabia where Mecca is located which is the Muslim's holy city and because we support Israel.
    Now with that being said would it help if we pulled all troops from Muslim lands (Iraq, Afganistan,and Saudi Arabia) probably not much they would find some other excuse to be against us.
    Is Guiliani's campaign going to be hurt by this probably not because he is already hurting himself running republican when he should have ran democrat because that is what he is at heart. His non conservative thinking is what is going to hurt him with the republican constituency due to the fact that most will not see any difference between his platform and that of the Dems.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. michaelr

    michaelr New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Here not there
    Well put. :D
     
  5. Justinian

    Justinian New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    What's left of Long Island
    Uhuh

    And how. I have to agree with everything you said. The only thing I think that could be added is that the region has inherently hated the western world since...forever and vica versa. True, some governments have tried to do good things in the middle east but we never liked each other. As you all know every country wants to be dominant or wants to have been dominant. The Middle East has only dominated Europe once when we have dominated the middle east many more times.
     
  6. Abraxis Axis

    Abraxis Axis New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    get ready for




    2MORE YEARS OF G.W. BUSH
     
  7. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    I will agree with many earlier sentiments regarding muslim extremists not liking the US because of our blind support of Israel. But going back earlier, there are still plenty of extremists who are still pissed about the Crusades. But in general it is the imperialism that began several hundred years ago and is still causing many problems today. For instance Iraq was created in a very ill-thought out way after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and from what I have gathered in talking to several muslims, they are tired of the west putting band-aid after band-aid on the issues they want to settle themselves, but due to our oil gluttony we seem to not be able to stop meddling in thier affairs.
     
  8. JavaBlack

    JavaBlack New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, US
    It's a mix.
    The "blowback" theory is correct, though it is only part of the ultimate truth. However the total denial of it is extremely incorrect.
    The problem with "blowback" is that it is prescriptive and does not help to solve problems we already have.
    Another problem is that its proponents tend toward isolationism. "Blowback" IMO is better as a warning to think before acting than to not act.
    Overall I agree more with Paul. Giuliani's rhetoric is abrasive and warmongering and serves only to make our conflict with the Middle East worse. He is for ignorance, a failure to understand our enemy's motivation.
    If we do not understand our enemy's motivation, we cannot form a working strategy.
     
  9. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I posted on another thread:

    Ron Paul has never said that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense, and he believes in that. What he and I are saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

    "The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

    The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

    Al qaeda declared jihad because:
    (1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
    (2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
    (3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

    Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

    They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

    But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

    Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

    Why do they hate us -

    http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

    As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

    There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

    "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
    [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

    ...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

    Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

    First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

    Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

    And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.
     
  10. bokile

    bokile New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    Yes that is thrue. I did not know for this man Ron Paul until just 5 minutes ago. I do not wach a lot of tv but i was suprised how smart this man is.
     
Loading...

Share This Page