See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Ron Paul’s immoral foreign policy
Source:
curtisschweitzer.wordpress.com
URL Source: http://curtisschweitzer.wordpress.c ... -pauls-immoral-foreign-policy/
Published: Nov 12, 2007
Author: curtisschweitzer.wordpress.com
Post Date: 2007-11-12 18:51:03 by longnose gar
Keywords: ronpaulismylordandsaviour, blameamerica, iloveislamofascists
Views: 972
Comments: 18
This is the first in a 5-part series critically examining the platform of Ron Paul, the much in-vogue Republican candidate for President. In this installment, I plan to make the case against Paul’s foreign policy platform, which I intend to show is 1)immoral, 2)unrealistic/outdated, and ultimately 3)bad for America and its allies. (As a sub-point, I would also note that, despite claims to the contrary, it is also isolationist). Were Ron Paul to be elected, I posit, his foreign-policy positions alone would mean a world that was significantly less safe and hostile to the United States– even more so than today. Before I begin addressing the 3-point criticism of his actual platform, I feel it is incumbent to answer the childish and inaccurate claims that Paul makes about the Iraq war, and to examine how Paul manipulates the current discussion to over-emphasize them. To begin, I would recommend visiting Paul’s foreign-policy page, wherein he opens with the following screed: The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Paul makes 4 points in this paragraph: 1. The Iraq war was “sold” by false information 2. Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it 3. We have created “blowback”, spawning more terrorists than before 4. It has cost too much, both in lives and money Assertion 1) is a blatant attempt to accuse the Bush Administration of lying without actually coming out and saying it– after all, were one to point out that the information that the war was supposedly “sold” on was agreed upon by every major U.S. ally would no doubt engender a response from Paul supporters that it claims merely to be “inaccurate”–regardless of who believed it to be true. And yet this removes completely the context of the causus belli Iraq war– after all Saddam’s own generals were dismayed to discover that he in fact did not have a sprawling, secret WMD program, and Israeli, French, English, Russian, Chinese, and German intelligence agencies all concurred with the CIA’s assessments of Iraq’s WMD program. The implicit claim of Paul’s platform is that the information needed to be “sold”– when in fact, it stood on its own merits by any reasonable standard. By attempting to avoid this critical context, Paul in effect lies in the opening sentences of his foreign policy position by quite clumsily stealing a page directly out of the MoveOn.org playbook. The second assertion, that Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it, is not only a red herring, it is debatably false– that is, depending on how one defines “dangerous”. Indeed, prewar sanctions on Iraq were killing thousands of civilians each month, and his brutal regime was being allowed to oppress the entirety of the population. To be sure, in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, there remains an incredibly unsafe environment in Iraq– but one must ask themselves which environment is inherently “less safe”: one where jihadists are actively challenged by the most powerful military on the face of the earth, or the environment wherein an oppressive government is allowed to murder unchecked. While less people may have been killed by the Saddam regime daily than are killed in Iraq by militant jihadists, there is a discernible difference between both situations. Indeed, even if one agrees with Paul that Iraq is less safe now than it was under Saddam, that says nothing about the inherent morality or sustainability of the war itself– after all, the Allied landing at Normandy made the whole of Europe less safe than it was under the iron grip of Nazi rule, but very few people would pen breathless treatises against the liberation of that continent. The third assertion– that we are spawning more terrorism by our presence in Iraq (the so-called “blowback” theory) is easily defeated by the simple fact that terrorists existed and harmed the United States external to, and before, our troops were in Iraq. Indeed, the long-winded explanations that Bin Laden gave as justification for 9/11 may have mentioned the U.S. military, but were far more directed against American (specifically, globalized and capitalist) culture. Indeed, the recent success of the “surge” in Iraq– which in some areas has reduced violence by 70%, shows that the inevitable consequences of military success are less– not more– terrorist actions. Simply put, Paul cannot simply dismiss the argument that the United States should fight terrorists in Iraq rather than in the streets of New York city by claiming that the invasion of Iraq lead to more terrorist action. Terrorists do not need an excuse to kill Americans– and while we may be facing significant opposition in Iraq and elsewhere, to suggest that such realities mean that we should pullout of Iraq wholesale is an exceedingly weak, and I might add, dishonest argument. If one agrees with the first 3 assertions, the 4th follows quite nicely. If, however, one disagrees with them, than the fourth is somewhat moot– after all, what is the price of American security? I would wager that, given that less soldiers have died in Iraq than in single days in the Second World War, those who believe in the inherent justification of the Iraq war certainly believe that it is worth the cost in lives and money to ensure American– and global– security. It is worth noting that the fact that Paul opens his foreign-policy statement with such a detailed critique of the Iraq war is evidence itself that he is using this one particular stance to garner support from factions that most likely disagree with the rest of his political positions. It makes no sense that he would define his entire foreign policy on one particular sticking point– the war in Iraq– unless he realized that it would somehow benefit his political position. I, for one, believe that Paul is smart enough to realize that if he continues to overemphasize his very chic opinion vis a vis Iraq, he can manipulate the media– and fringe elements of the right– in order to say, raise $4 million in a single day. But that’s a different story. With that out of the way, lets move on to a larger critique of Paul’s foreign policy, which I outlined in the opening paragraph: 1. Ron Paul’s platform is immoral Ron Paul stands staunchly against what he considers to be “police” actions– which presumably are those wherein the United States works with international partners to help secure troubled areas of the world external to an actual war. The difference between a “police action” and an actual war is famously thin, however, the validity of a police action is nonetheless obvious when one examines examples throughout history. One of the most famous “police actions” in the past few years was the NATO intervention in Kosovo, wherein military action was used to halt what amounted to genocide. Indeed, when one views the world in context, one wonders why there aren’t more “police actions” in places like Darfur, where millions have been displaced or murdered by vicious militants. Would Paul have supported a “police action” in Rwanda, where the world sat by and watched while millions of people were slaughtered wholesale– on the basis that the United States had no interest– economic or otherwise– to stop that horrific example of widespread ethnic cleansing? Ron Paul notes in his platform that Kosovars have turned on the United States and supported Islamic militants– gleefully asking whether we should regret saving them. I respond thus: who cares? The United States saved lives in Kosovo, and no matter the “blowback” it was nonetheless a moral response. It is worth noting that this is the major departure that Paul has with so-called neoconservatives, who believe that military action has the power to solve a wide array of problems– many of which would constitute the “police actions” that Paul describes. It is also worth noting that no one should be compared to Reagan who does not believe that America is a force for good in the world, and that we have the responsibility to intervene militarily in situations where the helpless are being oppressed. Ron Paul’s isolationist platform– and it is isolationist, no matter how many times he and his supporters claim that it isn’t– is, in effect, an implicit endorsement of genocide. 2. Ron Paul’s platform is unrealistic and outdated Ron Paul claims to want to see support and goodwill toward America fostered around the world. And yet, in the same breath, he advocates ignoring military resolutions of international bodies such as the United Nations– a move that would surely cause consternation and incredibly dislike of America and her policies around the globe– possibly even moreso that what George W. Bush has supported. Indeed, even his opinion on Iraq– which, of all things, claims to bolster the security of the United States (presumably by allowing jihadists– including Al Qaeda– to consolidate power in the ensuing chaos, and giving them a have wherein to plot attacks against the United States). In a globalized world, it is incredibly unrealistic and foolish to ignore resolutions by one of the most powerful (and, I might add, deeply flawed) organizations in the world. Please don’t think this is an endorsement of the United Nations– Google this site for “Oil for Food”, and you will see that I support wholesale reform of the organization– I merely believe that destroying our relationship with this body would be one of the most unwise unilateral actions the United States has ever taken. Why does Paul not call for reform of the manner in which military resolutions are passed– to work with the U.N.? Because his platform is not based in practical considerations. 3. Ron Paul’s Platform is bad for American and her allies The mere fact that Ron Paul wishes to engage in an action that would create a haven for terrorists (Iraq) should be evidence enough of how poorly he would protect the interests of the United States abroad. But consider his other positions. Paul favors– among other things– that America withdraw from NATO, eroding immensely one of the strongest pro-Western military alliances– in the face of, I might add, one of the strongest anti-Western movements: jihadism. Paul also opposes the very notion of the draft (while, in a clear example of fear-mongering claiming that it is soon to be called up), which was one of the main tools the United States used to defeat Nazism in Europe. All in all, he seems to be against military alliances– does anyone think that this would at all strengthen the position of the United States in international relations? Ultimately, it is Ron Paul’s success that his driven him to hold such radical positions– capitalizing on the resounding success of his anti-war message, he has made himself into the quintessential anti-war candidate. He may have held the same policy positions for 30 years, but that says nothing about the relative strength of those positions– especially when they are masked by a comparatively contemporary one– the Iraq war. His platform as a whole would erode the already threatened strength of American foreign-policy by isolating us away from critical alliances such as NATO, and harming our relationship with the U.N., which would greatly hamper attempts to reform it. Ron Paul is wrong for America. He promises to isolate us from the rest of the world, and to make it a significantly more dangerous place. His platform would hamstring America’s efforts to prevent oppression around the world, and, in the short term, he would create a terrorist haven in Iraq. Ron Paul does not offer “hope” for America– or anyone else.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: longnose gar, Curtis Schweitzer (#0)
uh..you can't handle the truth. you're not going to sell this here, mudfish.
this should be fun
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I do believe I smell sardines...
That explains why people all around the world are PRAYING that Paul is the next President (rolling eyes).
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Hard to pen much of anything when you're dead.
1) is a blatant attempt to accuse the Bush Administration of lying without actually coming out and saying it–
#2. To: longnose gar, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#0)
#3. To: christine (#1)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#4. To: robin (#2)
Ron Paul does not offer “hope” for America– or anyone else.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#5. To: longnose gar (#0)
#6. To: longnose gar (#0)
after all, the Allied landing at Normandy made the whole of Europe less safe than it was under the iron grip of Nazi rule, but very few people would pen breathless treatises against the liberation of that continent.
 | “Before Isandwhlana we treated all your wounded men in our hospital. But when you attacked our camp your brethren, our black patients, rose and helped to kill those who had been attending on them. Can any of you advance any reason why I should not kill you?’ One of the younger men, with an intelligent face, asked, “May I speak?’ “Yes.’ “There is a very good reason why you should not kill us. We kill you because it is the custom of the black men. But it isn’t the white man’s custom." |
#7. To: robin, christine, lodwick, critter (#5)
See where talk show host Glenn Beck referred to supporters of Ron Paul as "terrorists"? The boycott of his sponsors is underway...people are pissed!
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#8. To: who knows what evil (#7)
No I missed it! So who are his sponsors? I want to be sure to boycott too.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
#9. To: robin (#8)
Scroll down through this page ...you'll see most of them. Walgreens seems to be the one most are going after...
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#10. To: who knows what evil, *Ron Paul for President 2008* (#9)
http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/sit...upportcontacts https://www.progressive.com/contact-us.aspx http://www.volvocars.us/footer/contact/ Thanks! Everyone, if possible boycott these Glenn Beck sponsors. Remember, we're terrorists according to Glenn Beck, just for supporting Ron Paul.
Here are the list of advertisers during Glenn Beck's show on 11/12
Marriot
http://www.lilly.com/contact.html
http://www.ustrust.com/contact/
http://newscenter.verizon.com/media-contacts/#business
http://www.geico.com/newsite/about_geico/contact_us/
http://automobiles.honda.com/informa...relations.aspx
http://www.lunesta.com/contact/contact.html
http://www.schwabbank.com/contactUs....F90515AD753192
http://www.legalzoom.com/customer-su...r-support.html
http://www.josbank.com/customer_service_main.tem
https://secure.bayer.com/bayer/contact.aspx?lang=en
http://www10.americanexpress.com/sif...section=topnav
http://www.llbean.com/customerService/index.html?
http://www.tdameritrade.com/contact.html
http://www.americaspower.org/Contact-Us
http://www.lincoln.com/help/contact_us.asp
http://www.farmers.com/FarmComm/WebS...ontact_us.html
http://www.glassdoctor.com/contact.htm
http://www.walgreens.com/contactus/forms.jsp
http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/seque...6_0_en,00.html
http://www.libertymutual.com/omapps/...arkBlue&c=Page
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/global/contactus/main.aspx
http://www.directbuycares.com/contact-us.html
http://www.aarp.org/about_aarp/contact/
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
#11. To: robin (#10)
You should see the reaction from the MILITARY supporters of Congressman Paul. Beck just REALLY f*cked up...if Imus gets canned for referring to a woman's basketball team as "nappy headed hos"; then Beck should be fired for calling Paul supporters, many of whom are in the military, terrorists. Good riddance, Beck.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#12. To: who knows what evil (#11)
You have a point. Good riddance, Beck. That would be peachy keen.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
#13. To: longnose gar (#0)
I could not understand any of your arguments. Perhaps if you restate them in understandable English they might make more sense.
#14. To: DWornock (#13)
no can do Talking points are made to regurgitate not to clarify or debate outside the boundaries of the talking points themselves.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
#15. To: who knows what evil (#11)
Beck is protected by the super deluxe, Kevlar coated Zionist vest. It cannot be penetrated by criticism from folks like us. Yep, I'm that pessimistic.
#16. To: longnose gar (#0)
I have always believed that the obsession to depose Saddam was rooted in the concerns among a small, but influential group of bureaucrats that Iraq was weak and subject to the predations of Iran and Syria...so these bureaucrats hatched a plan to depose Saddam and replace him with a pro-Western, pro-Iranian leader. After years of trying unsucessfully to push the American and Israeli governments into deposing Saddam...9/11 provided the perfect pretext to push their long-frutsrated plans into action...they could work to frighten the American public into believing the absurdity that Saddam (the same Saddam that they had long been portraying as so weak the Iraqi regime was ready to collapse) was a menacing, imminent threat to America. Now, thew irony is that, like all grandiose government plans, the plan to depose Saddam so as to prevent Iran gaining influence in Iraq...has stregthened Iran. And as to the stated (although false) reason for deposing Saddam...to defeat the jihadist movement...the US misadventures inb Iraq have only revived Al Qaeda from near death and strengthened the worldwide jihadist movement. As early as 1996, a group of neoconservatives, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Doug Feith, who are all part of the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, present a report entitled A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm to Israeli PM Netanyahu. As we know, all of these guys would later become part of the Bush Administration and all were key architects of the invasion of Iraq. Perle goes on to become the Chairman of Defense Policy Board, Wurmser works at the State Department, then become Mid-East adviser to VP Cheney and Feith would become Under-Secretary of Defense to Paul Wolfowitz. A Clean Break sets forth why it’s in Israel’s interest to depose Saddam. Israel can shape its strategic environment, ... This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.... Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq... Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria... To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War. www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm Later in 1996, Wurmser writes a second report for the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies think tank, entitled Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant. This report expanded on the reasons to depose Saddam...but you can read through it and see that none of the reasons had anything to do with Saddam having WMD’s, Saddam’s connection to terrorist groups that threaten America, building a democracy in Iraq or liberating the Iraqi people. Quite the opposite...the report argues that the Iraqi regime was very weak and if it collapsed, Syria and Iran, Israel’s two most dangerous enemies, could fill the vacuum. www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm Wurmser is pressing for US and Israeli support for the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi. We all remember Chalabi. He was the first chairman of the INC. He led a failed coup attempt against Saddam in 1995 that was originally backed by the CIA before the CIA intercepted a message from the Iranian government showing that Chalabi had forged a document from the U.S. asking him to get help from the Iranian government, and had shown this to Iran. After that the CIA refused further help to Chalabi. Nevertheless, despite much evidence that Chalabi had extensive contacts in Iran and was using the US to get rid of Saddam...the neoconservatives maintained a close relationship with him. In his book Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, Wurmser, who became VP Cheney’s Middle East adviser, says that Chalabi is “one of two mentors who guided my understanding of the Middle East." The Project for the New American Century...a neoconservative, internationalist group headed by Bill Kristol, members of which included virtually every advocate of war against Iraq in the Bush Administration including VP Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David Wurmser and John Bolton...published a piece in May 2001 called Liberate Iraq (“libertation”...this type of internationalist, nation-building was always the reason behind the invasion of Iraq and always very attractive to the neoconservatives who are, at their core, left-leaning, big-government types who revere FDR (in the words of Irving Kristol himself)). In that May 2001 article, PNAC wrote of Chalabi: Foreign Affairs published a high-profile attack on the INC ... It left the impression that Ahmad Chalabi is definitely not the man to lead the opposition, let alone the nation. ... Yet Chalabi may be ideal for the task, for the very reasons that often cause critics to trash him. He is rich, upper class (in the old-world sense), well educated, highly Westernized, an expatriate, and, last but not least, a Shi'ite Arab. ...but the critical factor for his leadership would be America's support. Once Chalabi was chosen by us, everyone else -- the Kurds, the Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs, the Turks, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Saudis -- would view him in an entirely new light. But who was Ahmed Chalabi?...it seems clear now that he was a con man who, on behalf of his Iraqi National Congress, conned the likes of Bill Kristol, David Wurmser and other advocates of deposing Saddam and used the US military to help him and his INC remove Saddam. Chalabi provided some of the intelligence on WMD’s that was cited by the Administration. It was Chalabi’s defector and other INC sources that told American intelligence about the mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq that Colin Powell described in his address to the UN. But, we now know the intelligence was bogus...that Iraq had no WMD’s. Even the US government seems to have now acknowledged this. Another source , associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) (hereinafter "the INC source") , was brought to the attention of DIA by Washington-based representatives of the INC. Like Curveball, his reporting was handled by Defense HUMINT. He provided one report that Iraq had decided in 1996 to establish mobile laboratories for BW agents to evade inspectors. 253 Shortly after Defense HUMINT's initial debriefing of the INC source in February 2002, however, a foreign liaison service and the CIA's Directorate of Operations (DO) judged him to be a fabricator and recommended that Defense HUMINT issue a notice to that effect, which Defense HUMINT did in May 2002. Senior policymakers were informed that the INC source and his reporting were unreliable. The INC source's information, however, began to be used again in finished intelligence in July 2002, including the October 2002 NIE, because, although a fabrication notice had been issued several months earlier, Defense HUMINT had failed to recall the reporting. www.wmd.gov/report/report. html#overview In 2004, Chalabi...hero of the neoconservative advocates of an invasion of Iraq...is found to be spying for Iran...at which point the US government finally cuts their ties to this dirtbag www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html The same small group of neocons continued to push both Israelis and Americans (and both governments to depose Saddam and back Chalabi and the INC). In 1998, Forward, the American-Jewish newspaper published an article entitled, Iraqi Resistance Calling on Jewry For Support in Quest to Depose Saddam Allies of Chalabi Meet Ambassador Gold, Warn of White House Folly From the article: With Senate Majority Leader Lott pushing for $10 million in new funding for the Iraqi opposition, supporters of the free, democratic Iraqi National Congress are calling upon Israel and members of the American Jewish community to get behind their quest to depose Saddam Hussein. An adviser to INC chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar- Illan. Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein. In international terms, pro-Israel, pro-INC policy analysts envision a Middle East where Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the liberated portion of Iraq confront the dictatorial, anti-Western nations of Iran and Syria. A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. "Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support," said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration. Mr. Wurmser said an INC-controlled region in the north of Iraq is the missing piece to complete an anti-Syria, anti-Iran block. "If Ahmad extends a no-fly, no-drive in northern Iraq, it puts scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel," Mr. Wurmser said. "This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition." The irony of ironies is that now we see that this small group of arrogant little bureaucrats who hitched their wagon to a guy (Chalabi) and a group (the INC) to remake Iraq (and in their grand plans...the Middle East) into an anti- Iranian, pro-Western region...the only problem for these government bureaucrats is that Chalabi and his INC turned out to be allied with Iran. Now, there are many in Israel (which, like America, was ill-served by listening to those obsessed with deposing Saddam) who now believe, in retrospect, that Israel was safer with Saddam in power. www.forward.com/articles/israeli-experts-say-middle-east-was-safer-with- sad/ Not only has Iran greatly expanded its influence in Iraq now that its mortal enemy Saddam has been deposed...and not only has chaos and destabilization reigned...not only has Al Qaeda established a base of operations in Iraq now...not has Al Qaeda used the huge US presence in Iraq to recruit thousands of new jihadists how can get experience in urban warfare...but one fact that has been lost is that Saddam had greatly moderated his anti-Israeli stance in the years after Iraq’s war with Iran. From the Forwardarticle: A few years into the Iran-Iraq war, however, Saddam moderated his anti- Israel stance. Some observers believe he merely hoped to curry favor with Washington. Others say that even so, it might have led to a thaw. Jews in Iraq were now protected by a special unit and had a phone number to call if harassed. “Nobody could touch us,” said Emad Levy, who lived in Iraq at the time. In 1982 Saddam told a visiting congressman that he supported the “existence of an independent Palestinian state accepted by the Palestinians.” He added, “It is also necessary to have a state of security for the Israelis.” Israeli officials publicly dismissed the feelers as a smokescreen. Soon after, Saddam moved closer to Egypt, which he had previously snubbed for making peace with Israel. Iraq’s government-controlled newspapers began using the word “Israel” in place of “the Zionist enemy.” In early 1986, Israel’s then-prime minister, Shimon Peres, a supporter of secret American-Iran arms deals, stopped supplying Iran and sent aides to meet secretly with Iraqi officials. The contacts were reported in the Israeli press but firmly denied by both sides. “Nothing came of the meetings,” Baram said, “but they showed that something was moving.” And what about us...how has America benefited from the war in Iraq? I would say...like Israel...the toppling of Saddam was a Pyrrhic victory. What have we accomplished for the supreme sacrifice made by over 3000 great Americans...and the wounds to tens of thousands more...what have we gained for the trillion+ dollars spent in Iraq so far? We’ve destabilized the country to such an extent that many argue the US military cannot leave lest there be a complete breakdown into chaos (although not leaving seems to just be delaying the inevitable now)...the war in Iraq has expanded Iranian influence... Most importantly...the war has expanded the worldwide jihadist movement. This is a point lost on so many. Al Qaeda has benefited from the US presence in Iraq and will continue to do so. Yes...our brave soldiers are killing jihadists every day...but the jihadist movement is expanding...in large part the growth is feeding off the huge US military presence in Iraq. The April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate states: Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.... We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. It is encouraging that the NIE states that if the jihadists perceive themselves as having failed, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight...but what is failure to Al Qaeda and the jihadists who fight for it? If, as have been the case, the extremist, anti-American jihadist movement is growing...to Al Qaeda, that is success. These same Islamists bled the Soviets for 10 years before the Soviets left Afghanistan...how long will Al Qaeda be able to bleed us (seeing as how, according to US intelligence, there are a growing the number of jihadists) before we recognize that the US military presence in Iraq is highly counterproductive to the War on Terror? Zarqawi, in a letter intercepted and translated by Centcom states that AQ would like to “prolong the war”: The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission AQ wants to prolong the war because its helped AQ breed new jihadists. Its not as though there are a finite number of jihadists in the world and we can defeat them through a war of attrition. As the NIE linked to above states....now 4 1/2 years after the US invaded Iraq...the number of jihadists is growing. Rueven Paz did a study of jihadists killed in Iraq that was published by the Israeli think tank Global Research in International Affairs Center. Paz found that “'the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.” www.e- prism.org/images/PRISM_no_1_vol_3_- _Arabs_killed_in_Iraq.pdf But US intelligence has long known that the US presence in Iraq and the destabilization has only helped Al Qaeda...both in recruiting and in training the new jihadists in deadly urban warfare...experience they can take back with them from Iraq to further terrorize the middle east, the US and our allies. In February 2005, then-CIA head Porter Goss told Congress: Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti- U.S. Jihadists. Those Jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in, and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, networks, in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries --Porter Goss, Testimony Before Congress, February 16, 2005 Other experts say the same thing: I can tell you this. In November or December of 2001, when, you know, America and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan, and fought the battle of Tora Bora, although we didn't capture or kill bin Laden or Zawahri or some of the other top lieutenants, Al-Qaida was essentially dead. It was not only that most of the members had been killed or captured. It was repudiated throughout the world. And it -- you know, the internal documents show that they were in great despair. Unfortunately, Iraq has given -- the -- the war in Iraq has given them new life. And I -- I fear the progeny of Al- Qaida are going to be with us for a long time. Michael Scheurer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden desk on the invasion of Iraq: if Osama was a Christian it was the Christmas present he’d always asked his parents for but would have never believed it would actually be delivered. Ah it broke the back of American counter terrorism efforts and counter terrorism policy ah in many ways and I have to say I’m not an expert on Iraq in terms of Saddam’s regime but before we went into Iraq we should have really balanced the two. Ah whatever the threats Saddam posed, what we’ve done by going into Iraq is basically validate what everything that al Qaeda has said about the Americans for the past decade in the eyes, at least in the eyes of Muslim. The Americans lust after ah Arab oil. They’ll destroy any Muslim government that stands up to them. They’ll destroy any Muslim government that threatens Israel. They will, they intend to annihilate Islam and occupy our sanctities while I bet no one even mentioned to the President before the invasion of Iraq that Iraq is the second most important place in Islam so ah in terms of what we have now, what we have is Afghanistan to the tenth degree because Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded was an Islamic backwater. It took a long time before the Middle East really began pumping fighters and money into Afghanistan. Iraq is smack in the heart of the Arab homeland and it’s going to be a magnet for Mujahadeen for the foreseeable future. As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. So...the government has spent over 3000 young Americans (not to mention the tens of thousands wounded) and a trillion dollars of future generations of Americans' money (seeing as how the nation is running deficits, we're borrowing all of this money) so far to strengthen Al Qaeda and the influence of Iran in Iraq...and you say this is moral?
--A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
-- Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Report to the President, March 31, 2005
--Lawrence Wright, author of Looming Towers--Pulitzer Prize winning book on Al Qaeda
--October, 1997 Summer Study Task Force on Department of Defense Responses to Transnational Threats, DSB
#17. To: longnose gar (#0)
And yet this removes completely the context of the causus belli Iraq war– after all Saddam’s own generals were dismayed to discover that he in fact did not have a sprawling, secret WMD program, and Israeli, French, English, Russian, Chinese, and German intelligence agencies all concurred with the CIA’s assessments of Iraq’s WMD program. The implicit claim of Paul’s platform is that the information needed to be “sold”– when in fact, it stood on its own merits by any reasonable standard. By attempting to avoid this critical context, Paul in effect lies in the opening sentences of his foreign policy position by quite clumsily stealing a page directly out of the MoveOn.org playbook. It's one thing to believe something is true. It's another thing to launch a war on the basis of that belief. Before going to war, you should be sure to a certainty, and, if you turn out to be wrong, you should be willing to pay a heavy price for acted so precipitously. Anyway, with all we now know about how the administration suppressed and discouraged contrary information, it's reasonable to accuse the administration of lying. We can at least be sure that they didn't care all that much whether their WMD accusations were true or not. And that's because the WMD's were not their real reason for going to war, only a pretext for war. Talk about an immoral foreign policy!
Assertion 1) is a blatant attempt to accuse the Bush Administration of lying without actually coming out and saying it– after all, were one to point out that the information that the war was supposedly “sold” on was agreed upon by every major U.S. ally would no doubt engender a response from Paul supporters that it claims merely to be “inaccurate”–regardless of who believed it to be true.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#18. To: longnose gar (#0)
So those that are against tossing trillions of dollars into the pockets of the filthy rich for a war that should never have been fought are immoral? Those that are against killing innocent people are immoral? Those that wish for the US government to protect THIS country are immoral? Screw off psycho.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest