Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Michael Scheuer is a former CIA agent who spent 22 years working on the front lines of our foreign operations, including being the head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit.
Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States. Any other Republican candidate or a reelected Obama will keep lying to Americans by claiming that we are being attacked because of our liberties, gender-equality laws, and elections rather than because of Washington’s constant intervention in the Islamic world. This now two-decade-old lie — which is abetted by most of the media — has hidden from Americans the fact that all of the would-be Islamist attackers who have been captured in this country were motivated by the invasion of Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, or some other U.S. government action in the Muslim world. As Dr. Paul has explained, our Islamist enemies are motivated by Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy, and as long as that foreign policy does not change the number of young, U.S.-citizen Muslim males willing to attack their fellow citizens will keep increasing. For those who doubt this reality, a quick look at the recently adopted Defense Appropriations Act will clear their eyes. That Act’s authorization for the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens in the United States is clear evidence that the leaders of both parties know that their foreign policy is going to bring war to America’s streets and towns and that the U.S. military will be called on to fight Islamists militants here at home.
Add to that endorsement the fact that Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active military members than ALL OTHER GOP CANDIDATES COMBINED.
You can also add Jim DeMint's recent statements that reveal his concern that we must rethink our foreign policy now, on our own terms, or we will go bankrupt and be forced to change it under much more unfavorable situations.
While the GOP screams of fiscal discipline, its no secret that they refuse to let a penny of "defense" funding get cut without screaming bloody murder. Private defense contractors are to the GOP campaign machine what the Union machine is to the DNC campaign machine. Problem is that much of that money doesn't go to "defense", it goes to maintaining an empire, and we just can't afford it forever. Lets close a huge portion of our foreign bases and bring our troops home and build them bases in America.
I keep seeing over and over the criticisms of Ron Paul that are usually: he's pretty good on that constitution thing and money stuff, but his foreign policy is just crazy and he doesn't support Israel.
Foreign policy happens to be an area where his ideas are EXACTLY what our country needs.
I do think that Ron Paul needs to do a better job of articulating his foreign policy. There's a world of space to be found inbetween Interventionism and Isolationism. Staying out of other nations business does not mean not sticking up for American interests. But the media has him pegged as a strict isolationist. He's done a good job of saying what he won't do with the US military. He needs to be clear on what he would do.
America has more foreign bases and is stationed in more countries now than at any other time in our nation's history.
It will eventually be a necessity to drastically scale back our foreign involvement.
Those that say Paul's foreign policy is crazy have been misled by Neo-Cons and the MSM talking heads they control.
I do think that Ron Paul needs to do a better job of articulating his foreign policy. There's a world of space to be found inbetween Interventionism and Isolationism. Staying out of other nations business does not mean not sticking up for American interests. But the media has him pegged as a strict isolationist. He's done a good job of saying what he won't do with the US military. He needs to be clear on what he would do.
I think he has at times done a great job of explaining his position on our foreign policy, but more often than not, he doesn't articulate it well and he drifts away from discussing what we should do militarily and focuses only on what we shouldn't do.
As big of a Ron Paul fan as I am, I understand that some people have a hard time supporting him if all they know about him are a few debate highlights and occasional short interviews. If he were a very clear and articulate person in giving on the spot answers, such as in the debates and interviews, I think he would hands down be the front runner.
Personally, I think his path to front runner status, the nomination, and the presidency hinges on the following things:
1) Clearly articulating his message that he supports Israel's sovereignty as a nation, and explaining how our intervention and foreign aid with strings attach directly interferes with their sovereignty. This would help Christians realize he actually is more supportive of Israel than our current politicians who tell Israel what to do and when to do it. He would also do well to remind people that he was the only one to oppose a resolution in the 1980's that condemned Israel for their military strike on what Israel believed to be a nuclear development in Iraq. He believes Israel is not only strong enough to defend themselves, but that THEY should decide if and when military action is needed to protect them.
2) Clearly articulating his message that he is not looking to cut our military. This is an area where he doesn't make himself clear often enough, and if he did it would IMO be a strong selling point for his views. He needs to regularly talk about how he wants to reopen military bases in America that have been closed and bring troops home from foreign bases and put them there. He also would be in favor of building more military bases IN AMERICA, which would be a huge economic boost as the cost of building and operating it would all be dollars that would recirculate in our nation rather than being spent in 130 different foreign nations.
3) Clearly articulating examples of when we should approve military action. For example, he would approve of a military strike against Iran IF they were to attack any of our vessels in the seas of the region as Ron Paul is a strong believer in the freedom of the sees for trade and travel, and anyone who would do anything to stop us from freely doing so would be viewed as an attack on us. If any nation made direct threats of attacking the US, we would give them clear warnings not to attempt it, and if they started to do so, we would go after them by Congress declaring war, and then going in and decimating our opponent as quickly as possible and coming home immediately. Also, if we were attacked in any way by terrorists, he supports shaping a letter of marque and reprisal as a method of going after the terrorists without getting into a decade long nation building quagmire that does little to nothing to improve our security. People can argue the validity of that method, but saying he would do nothing is false.
We should all view war for the horror that it is. We have been at war for a decade now and it appears that it is something that many just want America to accept as our permanent state. It is an ideology and foreign policy that will bankrupt our nation if we continue, and we will end up drawing down our military in a way that we have less control over and the outcome will be far less favorable for national security. Our occupation of Muslim nations only inspires more terrorism. For every terrorist we kill, at least one other takes their place. Instead of occupation, we should only go to war with nations that pose a DIRECT threat to us rather than some dreamed up hypothetical situation based on bad evidence, like Iraq. When we go into those wars, we should OBLITERATE the enemy as fast as possible AND COME HOME.
Closing foreign bases and brining our troops home and reopening American bases along with building new ones would be a huge economic boon, and would be a great morale booster for our troops and our nation. We can still be friends with nations that allow us to have bases now, and we can still do military exercises as a way of maintaining allied forces that are capable of coordinating a war against a real threat. We don't need 900 bases in 130 countries in order to do that. Imagine if we opened 100 new large bases in America for all of those troops and equipmment to be stationed at. Imagine if we focused on securing OUR borders to prevent potential terrorist entrance on the porous Mexican border. Imagine if we fixed our immigration policy to allow for migrant workers, visas, etc. to be easily obtained so that we can track those who enter our country and become serious about those who don't play by the rules.
I think he has at times done a great job of explaining his position on our foreign policy, but more often than not, he doesn't articulate it well and he drifts away from discussing what we should do militarily and focuses only on what we shouldn't do.
As big of a Ron Paul fan as I am, I understand that some people have a hard time supporting him if all they know about him are a few debate highlights and occasional short interviews. If he were a very clear and articulate person in giving on the spot answers, such as in the debates and interviews, I think he would hands down be the front runner.
Personally, I think his path to front runner status, the nomination, and the presidency hinges on the following things:
1) Clearly articulating his message that he supports Israel's sovereignty as a nation, and explaining how our intervention and foreign aid with strings attach directly interferes with their sovereignty. This would help Christians realize he actually is more supportive of Israel than our current politicians who tell Israel what to do and when to do it. He would also do well to remind people that he was the only one to oppose a resolution in the 1980's that condemned Israel for their military strike on what Israel believed to be a nuclear development in Iraq. He believes Israel is not only strong enough to defend themselves, but that THEY should decide if and when military action is needed to protect them.
2) Clearly articulating his message that he is not looking to cut our military. This is an area where he doesn't make himself clear often enough, and if he did it would IMO be a strong selling point for his views. He needs to regularly talk about how he wants to reopen military bases in America that have been closed and bring troops home from foreign bases and put them there. He also would be in favor of building more military bases IN AMERICA, which would be a huge economic boost as the cost of building and operating it would all be dollars that would recirculate in our nation rather than being spent in 130 different foreign nations.
3) Clearly articulating examples of when we should approve military action. For example, he would approve of a military strike against Iran IF they were to attack any of our vessels in the seas of the region as Ron Paul is a strong believer in the freedom of the sees for trade and travel, and anyone who would do anything to stop us from freely doing so would be viewed as an attack on us. If any nation made direct threats of attacking the US, we would give them clear warnings not to attempt it, and if they started to do so, we would go after them by Congress declaring war, and then going in and decimating our opponent as quickly as possible and coming home immediately. Also, if we were attacked in any way by terrorists, he supports shaping a letter of marque and reprisal as a method of going after the terrorists without getting into a decade long nation building quagmire that does little to nothing to improve our security. People can argue the validity of that method, but saying he would do nothing is false.
We should all view war for the horror that it is. We have been at war for a decade now and it appears that it is something that many just want America to accept as our permanent state. It is an ideology and foreign policy that will bankrupt our nation if we continue, and we will end up drawing down our military in a way that we have less control over and the outcome will be far less favorable for national security. Our occupation of Muslim nations only inspires more terrorism. For every terrorist we kill, at least one other takes their place. Instead of occupation, we should only go to war with nations that pose a DIRECT threat to us rather than some dreamed up hypothetical situation based on bad evidence, like Iraq. When we go into those wars, we should OBLITERATE the enemy as fast as possible AND COME HOME.
Closing foreign bases and brining our troops home and reopening American bases along with building new ones would be a huge economic boon, and would be a great morale booster for our troops and our nation. We can still be friends with nations that allow us to have bases now, and we can still do military exercises as a way of maintaining allied forces that are capable of coordinating a war against a real threat. We don't need 900 bases in 130 countries in order to do that. Imagine if we opened 100 new large bases in America for all of those troops and equipmment to be stationed at. Imagine if we focused on securing OUR borders to prevent potential terrorist entrance on the porous Mexican border. Imagine if we fixed our immigration policy to allow for migrant workers, visas, etc. to be easily obtained so that we can track those who enter our country and become serious about those who don't play by the rules.
America would be stronger, safer, and more free.
Awww, that's just CRAZY talk!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
