Non-interventionist and isolationist are basically synonyms in a case like this. Saying that we can use force for national defense but not project force outwards for the same ends is a fairly irrational outlook on war and its grounding in history is pretty bad. To say also that this has more to do with oil interests is absurd; that canard has been smacked down time and again. If we outright stole all of Iraq's oil production during all this time, and even into the middling future, it still wouldn't pay for what it cost to pursue regime change in Iraq. Clearly other factors are in play.
And seriously, George Tenet? 9/11 happened on his watch, remember. He's proven himself fairly incompetent on these issues before and since; I don't see why we should be taking his word for anything here. He was part of that "unmanageable bureaucracy that was unable to process the threats". What I wonder about is how you actually see any evidence that such unamangeable bureaucracy has changed. The DHS is really just another layer of that, and it's currently headed by a man who's soft on illegal immigration in spite of the fact that many of the terrorists who've lately attempted (and failed at) attacks on Americal soil have been here illegally. Uh... oops.
And seriously, stop with this "We have to consider why they hate us" crap. The reasons the terrorists hate us are quite obvious to anyone who actually studies what they say to each other, who doesn't merely rely on the soundbytes from Osama's video du jour. In their press releases these folks are half intimidating, half recruiting, so they're gonna spin things, but outside of those venues it's perfectly clear that you can't reason with these people. And indeed, why should you reason with, not obliterate, any organization that deliberately murders 3,000 innocent civilians?
But that said, the root causes for terrorism do matter; they just aren't the only prong of attack. One of the major ones is that we tolerate the imams spewing jihad, and I don't mean abroad but in our own backyards. Britain has had a major problem with this. But even if you can eliminate their recruiting pool, which is a difficult prospect itself, you have to deal with the current crop, which means killing them. And not coincidentally, in a "face culture" that takes great stock in appearances, the appearance of winning against these guys also greatly reduces their recruiting power, which we've actually seen play out. To say that we're just breeding more and more terrorists is a statement of pure ignorance.
All they really have to do is effectively spread the ideals. They're no more finite than we are in that regard. But to spread the terrorist ideals effectively, they have to be alive and be seen as credible. If the surviving terrorists are weak, and despised by the citizenry -- as seems to be the case in much of Iraq nowadays -- it's harder for them to get people to cooperate, let alone sign up. This is the "preference cascade" effect I mentioned. And as long as we're able to talk about collateral damage without remorse, I'm not sure we can say we're 100% life-affirming either. No person or society is 100% life-affirming. Some are better than others. If you wake up one day in a society that is completely life-affirming, go ahead and sleep in another hour or two, because you are probably dead. The idea that we use 9/11 as an excuse to globetrot and do as we please is why most nations don't look favorably upon us. "Most nations don't look favorably upon us" doesn't make me too sad. If Australia, Israel, and the U.K. all started hating us, then maybe I'd worry; but the rest of the world needs to get its act together before its opinion impresses me overmuch. But who cares; we can call them "terrorists" who have "ties to Al-Qaeda" and blow them off the map, right? If they are, in fact, terrorists (or deliberate sponsors of terrorists) with ties to Al Qaeda, then sure. They should generally have a chance to recant first. Afghanistan and Iraq both had the chance. And I'd rather cast my vote for someone I believe in than someone who I don't agree with but is considered "electable". That's your prerogative. I do understand that reasoning; I've voted for a couple Libertarian Presidential candidates myself. In my case I've come to agree with the Libertarians less than I once did, so it's no longer a problem for me -- there's never a candidate I completely agree with, so I just vote for the one I find least distasteful. | |
Gughunter:
Keep in mind that not all "insurgents" are "terrorists" and vice versa. Not everyone who opposes us is a terrorist. And certainly not everyone who attacks our military is a terrorist. And also remember that not all terrorists are suicide bombers. I should have been more clear: As long as we continue on our current path, we will continue to invoke hatred against us. As long as people hate us sufficiently, we will continue to be attacked, whether by terrorists or insurgents. Terrorism is just a tactic, an option for those who wish to attack us. If they are, in fact, terrorists (or deliberate sponsors of terrorists) with ties to Al Qaeda, then sure. They should generally have a chance to recant first. Afghanistan and Iraq both had the chance. And Iraq had... what links with Al-Qaeda? Have you forgotten that Saddam's secular government was hostile to Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda hated Saddam for that same reason? Virtually all of the claims we used as a basis for war with Iraq have been refuted. But the rest of the world needs to get its act together before its opinion impresses me overmuch. Wow... They should generally have a chance to recant first. ... Iraq ... had the chance. I wouldn't call that a chance to recant. Congress passed legislation in 1998 to depose Saddam. All we needed was an excuse to go in and do it. Lummox JR: Non-interventionist and isolationist are basically synonyms in a case like this. Wrong. Isolationism means we shut ourselves off from the world, which is not what Ron Paul advocates, being an advocate of free trade. Non-interventionism means we shouldn't meddle politically in the affairs of sovereign nations. And if we do, it should be up to the people, via Congress, not up to the President. Congress has the power to declare war, NOT the president. If someone attacks us, we should fight back. If there's an "imminent" (I say "imminent", because "at some point in the future, maybe" is not "imminent".) threat to our national security, we should take action. We should not, however, take action against nations that have done no harm to us whatsoever! And seriously, George Tenet? Yes, because he and others have explained how our "evidence" for WMDs was really obtained. Cheney told them that taking down Iraq was on the agenda, even just after 9/11, and the CIA was instructed to find WMDs, so what did they do? They "found" WMDs. It's as simple as that. There are several other people you can research besides Tenet if you don't want to take his word for it. Ron Paul is strongly against illegal immigration. In fact, he's probably taken the strongest stance of any candidate on securing our borders. So I don't see how you're using the DHS's weak stance against illegal immigration as a point against Ron Paul. Reduced illegal immigration would make it more difficult for terrorists from abroad to gain access to the U.S. And we've already seen how ineffective the DHS is at managing illegal immigration, even if they do post a headline or two about captured terrorists. And seriously, stop with this "We have to consider why they hate us" crap. The reasons the terrorists hate us are quite obvious to anyone who actually studies what they say to each other, who doesn't merely rely on the soundbytes from Osama's video du jour. I challenge you to do the same. Research Micahel Scheuer, who served the CIA for 22 years and was chief of the Bin Laden unit. Here's a 13-minute video of Ron Paul and Scheuer addressing this very issue: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA Skip ahead to 5:50 if you want to skip Ron Paul. I could provide even more sources if you like. "No one blew themselves up because of R Rated movies." And indeed, why should you reason with, not obliterate, any organization that deliberately murders 3,000 innocent civilians? And retaliating was the right thing to do. Ron Paul supported actions in Afghanistan. But we should NOT use the 3,000 dead as an excuse to attack people who were not responsible for 9/11! But that said, the root causes for terrorism do matter; they just aren't the only prong of attack. ... But even if you can eliminate their recruiting pool, which is a difficult prospect itself, you have to deal with the current crop, which means killing them. That's just scary. Killing people is not an appropriate way to quiet dissent. And unless you've forgotten, people are innocent until proven guilty in America. edit: Labeling someone a terrorist today is analogous to labeling someone a witch in the late 17th century. Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is a hard thing to prove, and people who are tortured are likely to name every man, woman, and child they're familiar with as a terrorist if they think it will get you to stop. To say that we're just breeding more and more terrorists is a statement of pure ignorance. Like I said, I didn't make myself clear. We're breeding hatred, which can then manifest itself as terrorism. | |
I see. I'm not sure about one thing, though: Even if we had won, they may well have kept it up for many years. But that's purely hypothetical.
All they really have to do is effectively spread the ideals. They're no more finite than we are in that regard. And as long as we're able to talk about collateral damage without remorse, I'm not sure we can say we're 100% life-affirming either. But that's neither here nor there...
If we don't look at the reasons why people attack us... then... we just give people more reasons to attack us. Our "We don't give a sh** about what you think! 9/11! 9/11!" attitude isn't helping matters at all.
We don't HAVE to go to war with the entire Middle East to kill ONE MAN. or even a small group of men, the ones who planned and facilitated 9/11. Our whole policy is just insane. There are more effective ways of doing things.
The idea that we use 9/11 as an excuse to globetrot and do as we please is why most nations don't look favorably upon us. But who cares; we can call them "terrorists" who have "ties to Al-Qaeda" and blow them off the map, right? Don't like our foreign policy? Take a number. We'll fit you in right after Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
You've heard the saying: What's popular is not always right. Our current policy, however popular it may be (what, 30% approval now?), is just plain wrong. Something must be done to fix the problem. You can argue that Ron Paul is unelectable all day, but that doesn't change what he stands for. And I'd rather cast my vote for someone I believe in than someone who I don't agree with but is considered "electable". Maybe if enough people did that, we wouldn't be in this problem today. Otherwise we'll just have two worthless candidates, another lesser-of-two-evils situation, to choose from yet again.