Foreign Policy question I need confirmation please
Submitted by rufrignkidnme on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 23:28in
A common neocon response to the idea of bringing our troops home from the bases in the Middle East is that they will follow us back here. And so, they reason, we must fight and kill them there so they won't come to our homes and kill us here.
However, I recall that the soviets were pretty much fighting the EXACT same people... in that conflict we were playing the role of Iran in giving arms and stinger missiles and yadda yadda but any way.
This is what I need confirmed. When the soviets finally did leave the Middle East, did the terrorists follow them?
Seems to me we have recent evidence that these al Qaeda people launch rpgs against any foreign nation patrolling their sand... anyway. Thanks for the feed back if there is any.
»
- Login to post comments
My Opinion
Is if we fight this hard to bring our troops home, Why would they provoke us into coming back?
Please delete my account Due to Mr.Nystom rewriting one of my post under my name.
Hate to say it but,
Ron might want to think about publicly stating how quickly we could turn Iran into a"sea of glass" if needed(with congressional approval of course).
This might help converting some war mongering republicans and ease some of the fears of the uneducated.
Google:
"Pape study on suicide terrorism"
Study compromised over 2,200 cases of suicide terrorism since 1981. 95% of the cases listed "foreign occupation" as the main reason for the attacks. The study also showed strong evidence that once the occupation ends...so do the attacks.
Why are neocons so scared?
If one of those jokers followed us home and attack us here, President Paul would have a Declaration of War in hand within 24 hours. President Paul will not be playing patty cake for ten years with our opponent. More importantly, our troops will not be fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
For a neocon to be concerned about Ron Paul’s foreign policy is rather bizarre. My guess, America would be shown a great deal of respect under a Paul Presidency, as we would return the same.
If you are interested in peace by strength, Ron Paul is your man. Our Constitution is the mechanism that provides this.
"In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it cost nothing to be a patriot.”-Mark Twain
If you recall, there were no major terrorist attacks on US soil
until George H.W. Bush involved us in war against Iraq in the early 90s, even though we had been blatantly siding with Israel since the '67 war.
No, there was no need
The so called freedom fighter were armed by US foreign policy and provided intelligence by CIA to fight the Soviets. The "terrorist" accomplished the mission of bankrupting the empire and helping collapse the USSR. There was effectively no one to follow, as the gvmt no longer occupied their land fell apart.
Ironically the people our gvmt fights in the middle east today, are the sons of the freedom fighters of yesterday.
I always try to emphasize that I support the troops but not the Military Industrial complex.
Let me know if you find good arguments and let us know how you do.
If they don't believe you, I am sure you can find both gvmt documents and reports to support your argument.
yeah that's right we called them freedom fighters then
now they're insurgents and terrorist.
The history of our intervention with Iran
The history of our intervention with Iran, lead to Iraq and Saudi Arabia and more intervention. Seems people are supposed to sacrifice liberty and believe that perpetual war leads to perpetual peace.
The US gvmt was very friendly with the Iran gvmt when the puppet leader our CIA helped instal was in power. The policy to help Iraq with war against Iran was blow-back from Iran people putting their elected leader back in power. The elected leader had been overthrown in the 50s with the covert CIA sponsored coup under a plan named Operation Ajax. Lots of blow-black in the taking of US hostages and other horrible events if you look into history of intervention policy.
The blow-back theory is from the CIA too and Ron Paul listens to it, and wants to reign in CIA for good reason, along with a lot of bureaucracy in gvmt.
I think the bottom line is as commander in chief Ron Paul can bring the troops home and I agree with Paul that it will boost our economy and do more to make us safe.
This policy to intervene with the elections and sovereignty of other nations while giving up our liberty and sovereignty is more popular that I would suspect. I hope folks wake up, and it looks like more are realizing the media is not looking out for them.
I think Ron Pauls economic understanding of Free Markets and Economic Forces should be enough alone to win primary. I respect that we are all individuals but I think it is fair to say some people just act without logic or reasoning they might apply otherwise when it comes to voting or politics. It seems to me all the sheeple hold Ron Paul to a different litmus test.
You're right
When the soviets left Afghanistan, no terrorist "followed them back" to Russia and Afghanistan is much closer geographically to Russia than the US, it would have been much easier for them. That reason is absolutely bogus.
Refer him to the ONLY study praised worldwide by terrorism experts on the motives of suicide terror, it's called "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by U. of Chicago's Robert Pape.
The conclusions are unequivocal: "The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Log...
90% of the conclusions of that study vindicates Ron Paul's foreign policy.
In sum, the reason stated by your friend is absolutely false and has no historical basis. The only people that can believe that stuff is those that listen to whatever demagogues of the worst kind, like Bachmann or Santorum, say...
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an