Libertarian Republican: Ron Paul is wrong on radical Islam

Funny, none of those instances occured in AMERICA. Further, Osama Bin Laden, in his 1996 fatwa said that our policies abroad were his motivation for declaring war on us. Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden doesn't know why he hates us?

I'm sure there are people out there who will kill and hurt other because their religion tells them too, IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE. However, the 9/11 attacks, the embassy bombings, and Islamic terrorism in general is the result of our foreign policy. Our own 9/11 Commission and CIA told us this, are you saying you know better than they do?

No, he's saying we shouldn't listen to OBH, or the CIA, but instead politicians trying to paint the picture that our enemies hate us because we are a rich and free country, so they can continue their war for profit unabated....lol?

Our presence in in 1996 was in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Saudi's were so happy we were there they wanted to give every military person 10K for being there. Exactly why is it that two sovereign nations should bow to the will of the terrorist? Is that Ron Paul's? MO, to bow down to individuals who threaten violence unless we Taylor our foreign policy to their liking? Saudi and Kuwait is where we were at in 96 (and to a lesser extent places like Yemen), they asked us to come and thanked us for staying. Yet more proof that Ron Paul is a coward, bowing to a terrorist and by his own words "backing off" of Iran demonstrates a glaring lack of leadership...

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are both MONARCHIES, so the people of that country didn't really have a say in the matter, did they?

Notice how America didn't start suffering from Islamic terrorism until we started meddling in their affairs? The people attacking us aren't princes getting greased by American investors, they're dirt-poor, usually young males who are frustrated with their governments and societies in general that THE UNITED STATES supports. They turn to their mosques, where they learn that infidels cannot occupy the holy land (Saudi is home to both Mecca AND Medina), and they are radicalized. Then, the government, supported by the US, kills or rapes one or two family members of these already unstable individuals, thus further radicalizing them.

Show me a single instance of Islamic terrorism against the United States prior to our involvement in the region. No, the Barbary Wars don't count, piracy is not terrorism, it is profitable enterprise.

Ron Paul has been an opponent of interventionist foreign policy since before 9/11, and has always advocated bringing ALL of our soldiers home. He is not a coward by any stretch, he stands on national television during each debate surrounded by candidates and moderators decidedly opposed to his ideas, and he speaks his mind, free of talking points or rhetoric. Ron Paul advocates sane foreign policy, and that is to stop telling other people how to live.

Think of it this way:

If the US was not the global hegemon, and China was, how would you react to China setting up naval stations in the Gulf of Mexico? How would you react to China financially backing a government that jails us without trial or tortures us? What would you do if China imposed sanctions on Canada, and starved their population into submission? What would you do if China supported oligarchs and MNC's that created vast sums of wealth for themselves, but who left much of the country below the global poverty line? I bet you'd seriously consider attacking some Chinese wouldn't you? I would too, it's called PRIDE and DIGNITY. You can't expect others to put up with things you yourself would not accept.

What has the United States gained by leaving bases in Saudi Arabia? Oil prices were lower before 1991, Israel could and to this day still can defend itself (and then some (see ALL ISRAELI WARS for examples)), and we bleed cash by maintaining supply routes and equipment over there.

What do we gain? A strategic foothold in the region? Why do we need one? If we don't piss people off by backing undemocratic governments and invading sovereign nations, we don't NEED a strategic presence in the region. Why do you neocons think America needs to police the world?

What is so wrong with using the US military to defend the UNITED STATES? We tried keeping forces in Vietnam for ten years, failed, and now because of respect and free trade, the country is moving towards democracy and is our FRIEND. Free trade and respect historically have worked better than bullets at enhancing a nation's welfare. In fact, I challenge you to demonstrate one instance in the 20th century where military expansionism benefitted a country. ANY country.

that makes a whole lot of sense, I've always thought the insurgents fight us so hard is because we tell them they can be free, "just like us"

i have to agree with freeman15 on this one!

Hitler? Oh wait no...um

Kuwait, Panama, Greneda, West Germany, South Korea

next question

No, demonstrate benefit TO THE EXPANSIONIST. Nice try at dodging the real question though.

:headbang:

Freeman how about China.

What countries did China occupy in the twentieth or twenty-first century? Tibet?

Isn't it funny how so many people can spout off **** like "Oh expansionist islamofasicst are trying to take over America" but yet can't even name a single ******* country that has tried expand through counquering other nations in the last 100 years?

Germany and Japan.

Yes Tibet, it was taken by the communist regime in 1965, and now works as an autonomous region of China.

Tibet wasn't a seperate country though. They tried to break away from the PRC and were re-absorbed.

Their independence was declared by the Chinese government in 1912, they were separately reigned and autonomous in their actions. They only weren't separate by contemporary Chinese standards.

Neither the PRC nor the Republic of China recognized Tibetan independence.

Even IF Tibet was a soveriegn nation, how did the PRC benefit from absorbing it?

THIS FROM WIKIPEDIA:

"Tibet is today part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (with a small part, depending on definitions, by India). As an exclusive mandate, Tibet is also officially claimed by the Republic of China (Taiwan). In the Tibetan sovereignty debate, the government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law."