This comment cracks me up left by a commenter on my last post:
“Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically.”
Good lord, I’ve done this before but here goes:
- Starting in 1979 under the Carter administration, our embassies in Tehran were seized and Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
- In 1982 the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up and 63 Americans were killed.
- In 1983 the Marine barracks in Lebanon were blown up and 241 Americans were killed.
- In 1985 the Italian Cruise Ship was seized and American was shot and thrown overboard with his wheelchair.
- 1986 a West-Berlin Dance Club was blown up (coincidentally the dance club was visited often by US Service Men) – two U.S. Servicemen were killed and over 50 severely wounded.
- 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 hijacked and over 200 people were slaughtered.
- 1993 — The first WTC bombing.
- 1995 — A Car bomb in Saudi Arabia blew up killing five Americans.
- 1996 – 23 U.S. Servicemen were killed in a bomb set in an Air Force Housing Complex.
- 1997 — Another car bomb.
- 1998 — The Embassy in Kenya was blown up. (Multiple deaths)
- 1998 — The Embassy in Tanzania was blown up. (Multiple deaths)
- 2000 — USS Cole blown up (Multiple Deaths)
- and the grand finale, 9/11!
Since then of course, there haven’t been any massive attacks on the U.S. or its interests. I guess those “neocon” scare tactics are paying off somewhat.
Tell me, was it neocon scare tactics that caused the destruction committed in 20 years mentioned above?
The truth is out there staring us in the face. We never needed a 9/11 commission and we certainly don’t need someone as misguided as Ron Paul.
Finally, Michelle Malkin points out that Ron Paul has visited Alex Jones on a couple of occasions. Do you know who Alex Jones is?
Man, I guess Paul will get support wherever he can.
More from Malkin’s article where she actually quoted “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”
Be sure to respond and remind me again how this is all just an evil plan of neocon war-mongers. Moreover; make the claim that it is the fault of the United States for all terror attacks in the last 20 years.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
The Federal government admits to misinformation every day. What’s your point. Don’t you read what they say about their own departments?
Haha, you talk about history and fail to go back to WWI, where the British drew all the lines in the sand, and then the overthrow of the (democratically elected and popular) Shah in, what, ’53? ’54? And then Khomeni’s exile in France, his propoganda tapes to incite the uprising in ’78? ’79? And THEN your little timeline. Puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it, to ignore reality?
Really, what is your point with the list of terrorist acts? You’re cherry-picking incidents to suggest our policies since 9/11 have stopped terrorism?
You list the murder of Leon Klinghoffer before 9/11, but don’t list the murder of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley after 9/11.
You list attacks in Europe before 9/11, but don’t list the attacks in Britain and Spain after 9/11.
You list the attacks on American soldiers in Lebanon before 9/11, but don’t list the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11.
The neocons, and conservatives in general, do use fear for political purposes. Does that mean there aren’t bad people in the world? No. But currently international terrorists are the neocon’s greatest foreign ally. Where would the neocons be without them?
Bret, the Carter administration allowed the Shah to be deposed by angry Islamic militants.
Moreover; it was France during the early part of the 1900′s that wanted to bring new life to a bunch of tribes throughout the entire middle-east. When they bailed out and left the mess to the British and Americans to contend with, you miraculously decide to start history right there as if the Brits and Americans for the last 70 years have had nothing better to do.
It was called WW2 remember, it was called the Cold War, international complexities that can be explained 75 million different ways but starting in 1979 when Carter stabbed the Shah in the back, it’s been hell comparable only to the kind of hell promised by the Nazis.
Now you want Ron Paul to come along and voluntarily stick every single American’s neck in the sand while we all pray together for “small government” while we pray that entire cities aren’t blown up by Iran because we failed to recognize the warning signs?
Sorry, but you’re going to have to take crazy somewhere else.
Finally, Bret –
“but don’t list the attacks in Britain and Spain after 9/11.”
That’s because they weren’t specific targets of Americans. All the attacks I mentioned included the target and destructions of America or its citizens, embassies, troops, etc. Please don’t act like you don’t know the difference.
Steve. What can I say? Your comments and opinions are just, well…So gay. If you could explain how building #7 of the WTC pancaked and collapsed at freefall speed without even being hit by a plane or anything else, perhaps I could give the feds the benefit of the doubt. Never forget that the united states has a military imperial presence in over 161 countries around the world. It’s been like that for a very long time. Could that be some of the reasons why we are attacked? Not that anyone really cares about what you personally think. I have a suggestion though. You might try using your head for something other than a hat rack.
“Tell me, was it neocon scare tactics that caused the destruction committed in 20 years mentioned above?”
It was blowback. All of them. Read Scheuer’s book.
People throw around the word “crazy” to mean “opinions I don’t agree with.” It often winds up being closer to “opinions I don’t understand.”
Steve, please don’t act like you’ve addressed all my examples by addressing one.
I know and understand history and politics, and with all due respect, I agree with Buckwheat. For the most part, the incidents you refer to are either blowback for an interventionist foreign policy, or the handiwork of a few sociopathic thugs hiding behind “jihad,” to satisfy their blood lust.
There’s a big difference between being isolationist and non-interventionist. The Founding Fathers never wanted us to be isolationists, but to trade with all, with allegiance to none. The United States Constitution does not allow for interventionist, nation-building policies.
Look at Switzerland. They are neutral, but not pacifist. Each male is required to serve in the military, and each female is required to learn civil defense. They have a stong military and are always ready to defend their country. They trade with other countries. They do not invade sovereign nations and depose the leader, no matter how bad that leader might be.
The current administration has been rather successful in exploiting the fear issue and the fear factor has been blown way out of proportion. Why should we fear a group of terrorist/thugs, when during Ronald Reagan’s time we stood up to the Soviets, who had/have thousands of nuclear weapons?
Ron Paul wants to abide by the rule of law, including making a declaraton of war when our country goes to war. With respect, I see nothing idiotic in that. Actually, I find it very honorable. If you study Ron Paul’s library of writings, you will not find idiocy, sir. You will find intelligent, wise, thought-out ideas that can only benefit Americans.
The oath to protect and defend the Constitution is taken by the President and by our military, yet the Constitution is being ignored by the current (and former) administration.
It is time to vote in a candidate who will honor that oath and return our country to the original intent of the founding fathers so that we may once again be a free, prosperous and non-interventionist nation, – a good example to all. That’s the way to lead, and the way to spread democracy.
“It was blowback. All of them. Read Scheuer’s book. ”
Scheuer also said on O’Reilly that we need to fight the current wars like we fought WW2. He is not anti-war and while he may question different theories or executions of our own national security, he is not an anti-war 9/11 conspiracy crazy. I like how people try and link the two.
Don, are you a scientist? If not, please watch the debate between the nuts who edited “Loose Change” and the real experts from Popular Mechanics.
The folks in this film totally discount the elements of pressure and gravity while trying to rationlize the minds of 9/11 terrorists.
For example one of them said that they don’t see why the terrorists would fly into the side of the Pentagon when they could have went straight through the front door.
LMAO — we want one man, who is committing the most horrific, insane, irrational act of all time of flying a plane through a building for just 1/8th of a second to be rational enough to “use the front door.”
Steve –
this has to be satire, right? you proved my freaking point, by pointing out the mess the French made of the place through … interventionism … prior to the bigger mess the Brits and Americans made of the place. It’s hilarious. You line up all this evidence and then conclude the exact opposite of what empircism tells you. That is called stupidy, my friend.
And as for the Iranians blowing up American cities, that’s just laughable. Why the hell would they do that? They want to sell their oil, don’t they? And who’s more oil addicted than the US? (maybe China, soon.) Furthermore, I would love for one of you warmongers (and there are a lot of you out there) to point out to me WITH WHAT ARMY AND/OR NAVY THESE WACKY MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO CONQUER US WITH. That’s all. Here’s a hint – ain’t never, ever going to happen. Now ask yourself, why would someone want to propagate such a baseless lie? I’ll provide you with the answer, since I’m such a nice guy – to keep the sheep in line, the bomb factories humming, and the dollars printing.
OK, here we go again for once and for all. I was standing next to Dr Paul when the students in the video you cite were asking him questions.
He had no idea their PREMISE because he did not know who they were or what their group is supposedly investigating. He was merely stating that as far as the ineptitude of 911, the fact that it happened at all, you would never get the full truth on it. Ron had no idea what a truther was to begin with.
Hey I let those kids in, they were polite, and at least Ron doesn’t have people ARRESTED for asking questions like Rudy and Fred do!
REPEATING FOR THE SIMPLE MINDED:
Just because someone is asked a QUESTION about a group or person, it does not mean they ACSRIBE to that person’s beliefs! Ron can’t be on top of everything and everyone who approaches him or know the premise by which they are asking their questions.
This is much ado about nothing.
“For the most part, the incidents you refer to are either blowback for an interventionist foreign policy”
Suzan, the “blowback” happened because Carter and Mondale REFUSED TO INTERVENE when the Shah was deposed by the group of Islamic lunatics who desired to take over their country, gain power, and begin their mission of forcing all humans to conform — and those who did not got disemboweled by some crazy shouting “Allah Akbar” –
You can look at the Carter administration as a perfect example for my next point –
Most liberals and anti-war people and 9/11 conspiracy theorists say that we brought attacks on because we kept intervening – and why do they think we did that? Oil, of course.
My argument is quite the opposite. While I still think oil is an objective of civility in a place where dictators feed their dissenters through wood-chippers (and you guys think the Patriot Act is bad), I acknowledge that it is PRECISELY because of oil that Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale stabbed the Shah in the back by refusing to intervene and stop a mob of crazy Islamic extremists from taking over a country.
To the contrary, the Carter administration embraced the new government (because of oil) and did not intervene (because of oil) and allowed the seed to be sewn for what is plaguing us right now throughout the planet.
He even felt so bad do selling out the Shah that Carter allowed him into our country to receive medical care from the Mayo Clinic for cancer — thus igniting the hostage crisis that last for 444 days.
If he would have intervened people, we wouldn’t be here discussing this today.
“and the real experts from Popular Mechanics.”
Not to get too deeply into this, but Jim Meigs, the editor of Popular Mechanics who co-authored their 9/11 piece, used to be editor of Premiere and other entertainment magazines.
He’s not a scientist, and they don’t make this clear when he does TV appearances.
“by pointing out the mess the French made of the place through … interventionism … prior to the bigger mess the Brits and Americans made of the place. It’s hilarious. You line up all this evidence and then conclude the exact opposite of what empircism tells you. That is called stupidy, my friend. ”
You’re a dork. I was making the point that if any one country could be blamed for intervention, it would indeed be France. They made a mess and WE were forced to deal with it — along with the Brits.
Morever; as I’ve pointed out eight-billion times, Carter and Mondale tried the “no intervention” method when they stood by and watched the Shah overthrown by Islamic fanatics and simutaneoulsy beginning to rub noses with them.
Turning our backs on extremism does not make it go away — as proven by Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.
The U.S. has had to use its power, along with the Brits to moderate the damage already done by these lunatics. So since we agree that France was the initial intervening country that pissed the uncivilized tribes off, other than attempting to moderate the violence against us and Israel, what do we do?
Turn our backs, it’s over, and pray that they will like us more!
Sorry, that’s something you can advocate while watching Ron Paul consistently come in 8th and 9th place in the polls.
Steve,
Muslim nations will be happy to play the game “you leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone.”
Look at the past 100 years: the British all over the Muslim world during the Empire, the Russians in the Great Game and Afghanistan, not to mention Chechnya; Americans in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc. and now threatening Iran with nuclear strikes.
Draw up a table of attacks, sanctions, threats, and which side of the field all the action is taking place on and it’s clear that Western governments have been the consistent aggressors in Muslim lands in modern times.
We dwarf them economically, culturally, academically, and militarily. They would be happy if we just stopped invading and attacking them. I’m sure you can find strains of radical Islam that decree world domination, but the vast majority of Muslims just want to be left in peace.
Let’s do it.
“Sorry, that’s something you can advocate while watching Ron Paul consistently come in 8th and 9th place in the polls.”
That’s telephone polls of people who aren’t paying attention to the race and don’t know who Ron Paul is.
Among well-informed people at this early stage, Ron Paul does very well.
People are only going to get better informed over the next six months.
You know, Steve, I appreciate your willingness to debate, but we can argue these points forever. You see things from a different point of view and I doubt we will end up agreeing on things.
I’m not indicating that anyone turn their backs on the bad guys. Those who committed the acts of terror should be found, caught and prosecuted. Justice should be served.
DECLARED wars waged in self defense are constitutional and should be fought to win. An undeclared war against a method-terrorism, is unjust and not warranted. A just war theory is in favor of equal measure to fight the enemy. We have gone far beyond that.
Here’s some of my random thoughts about war and terrorism.
I believe that war is evil except in self-defense when our country is attacked by another country. Period. We cannot wage war against the entire Middle East and/or the rest of the world, to eradicate terrorism. What about terrorists in Europe, Asia and South America? Should we take them on, too? Because of 19 hijackers and bin Laden? We aren’t really even going after bin Laden.
Pre-emptive war is abhorrent. Conservatives used to believe that. I am a lifelong conservative. I remember Eisenhower, a Republican who knew about war, stating that point exactly, that no one should ever support pre-emptive war.
We are not “defending ourselves and our way of life,” in a JUST manner. The terrorist are in no way as strong as we are. You cannot fight terrorism, which by definition is simply a method of violence, with a huge military invasion of a country. Don’t use the excuse that it’s because countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran support errorism. If that’s the excuse, then we should immediately attack Russia, who stealthily supports terrorism everywhere, and trained the first airplane hijackers way back when. And don’t forget Syria, Lebanon, Africa, Asia, as well. And perhaps our own country, too.
Our enemies, the dead 9/11 hijackers and a very much alive bin Laden, came from Saudi Arabia. Then why are we sending Saudi Arabia arms right now and allowing them to fund our debt while we buy their oil? What about how they hold telethons for suicide bombers? How do we rationalize those things and say at the same time we will go after those who support terrorism?
Killing thousands of innocent civilians and young Americans in the Iraq/Afghanistan/and future Iran war is simply not justified according to our own laws and moral law.
That is why I and Ron Paul, do not support it. I do not want my grandchildren to be fighting this war when they grow up. If we continue on this pre-emtive war trend, we will be ganged up on by the entire world and annihilated because of of our grave evils. Or we will finally go broke and become a third world nation. Or we will be at war forever. Is that what the neocons want? Shame on them. They should read history. It is repeating itself.
It’s time to stop the madness.
Buckwheat,
Okay, then why did the extremists strike back after Carter failed to intervene and assist the Shah is defending himself? We didn’t “intervene” then. As a matter of fact, once we was overthrown, Carter began immediately rubbing noses with them. If you notice, the brunt of fanatical attacks on us have been happening since then. Not back in the “France started it all” days.
How come when Reagan tried being nice in 1982 (at the request of Lebanon, not by “forceful intervention”) by working to establish a peacekeeping force between Muslims and Christians did the Muslims blow up the Embassy in Beirut along with the Marine barracks?
I just don’t know how much it’s going to take to prove to you that these fanatics DO NOT want to “give peace a chance” with the United States.
Then you mention the U.S. “threatening Iran with nuclear strikes” while refusing to admit “why?” We have a Holocaust-denying leader who has in recent years ran around claiming to have a nuke. What do you want to wait for? When an entire American city has been blown to Kingdom Come?
“Among well-informed people at this early stage, Ron Paul does very well.”
Now only the well-informed people are voting for Ron Paul? Interesting, there are many journalists, radio-show hosts, and conservative writers who disagree with your opinion on Ron Paul.
To call them uninformed is hideous.
Suzan, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments — and I do admit, you do not strike me as the type of extremist 9/11 conspiracy person that usually supports Ron Paul.
You said:
“I do not want my grandchildren to be fighting this war when they grow up.”
We’re going to be fighting it anyway. Regardless of how it began: because France intervened, or because Carter REFUSED to intervene, they hate us now. Electing Ron Paul and running away from them is not going to end it.
If you and I don’t support fighting now militarily, we will be fighting right here in our own streets as is happening right now in Iraq –the place that liberals continue to tell us had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda while we simutaneously watch like-minded terrorists fear a country of people who would get to live free like and and I do without thaking it for granted like most of our country does.
I respectfull disagree that we will be fighting war forever if we don’t fight now. I believe the opposite, that if we don’t stop now, there will be no end, and that we are perpetrating evil by continuing and we will regret it. And our freedoms are eroding because of it.
Regarding Dr. Paul, I urge you and others to check out some of his writings at ronpaullibrary.org Although you may disagree with him, I respectfully request you and others to please stop referring to him or his ideas as idotic. He may be many things, but he’s not dumb or evil. Please have respect for a man of good character who stands for what he believes in and can’t be bought, like many others. He really cares about our country whether you believe he is right or wrong. He’s got my vote in 2008, and I will do everything I can to help him get elected, because he’s a statesman, not a lying politician who will say anything to get elected. I believe he would, over time, transform our country into a shining example of freedom and goodwill again.
Thank you for your time.
Suzan,
He is not a stupid person when it comes to being a doctor or supporting the abolishment of Roe V. Wade and ideologically we will get more out of him thatn Democrats and libertarians would.
However; his war policies against the current adminstration’s efforts to keep us safe and to bring stability to the Middle East are indeed idiotic to me.
Liberals call smart conservatives idiotic all the time. People like Ann Coulter (an Ive League Honors graduate), George Bush (a Harvard/Yale graduate), Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a war supporter and highly intelligent woman who graduated college at 19, was teaching at Stanford at 26 and earned her Doctorate at 26.
I really don’t care whether liberals call my fellow conservatives idiotic. That doesn’t make it okay for us onservatives to do it. Why get down on that level? Both sides look like a bunch of yelling, bullies, especially on TV. Regardless of level of education, anyone can be a bully and a classless boor.
One can disagree with a person’s policies without attacking the person. I wish conservatives would take, and stay on the high road, especially during the election.
If you read history, then you know that Ron Paul’s ideas are are not idiotic. They may sound radical to some. But if they are idiotic, then so is the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of rights, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. I suppose those documents and those men seemed idiotic to the British monarchy and gentry at that time.
Say what you like about Dr. Paul, but he takes the high road when debating the issues, bullies no one, and he respects the ideas of our founding fathers. He is not a leftist, or part of the new one-party system we now have here in America.
And for these things he is at first demonized, ridiculed, and finally, in the end, he will respected.
“Why get down on that level?”
I’m interjecting invective that makes a solid point. I wholeheartedly think that his views are dangerous to us and when he loosely uses Ronald Reagan’s good name to promote such idiocy, it’s a problem many conservatives have.
Second, when people loosely throw around what the founding fathers stood for and correlate that with what Ron Paul is saying is another point that has to be addressed. What war-opponents have to prove is that we have uninvitedly invaded countries for no good reason and have made them resent us.
That is not the case with the United States. First, as has been indentified and agreed upon in this discussion: France intervened, not us. We got stuck moderating the damage by trying to rub noses with the leaders for the last 70 years and it did not work.
Second, the violence (the main jist of it against U.S.) erupted after the Shah was deposed. And as I pointed out, instead of intervening and helping the Shah, our country tried to appease the new radical government in Iran which took over (and held our citizens hostage for 444 days.)
Since then, it’s been an uphill battle. Enough is enough. Ignoring it and taking the position that everything is hunky-dory as long as it’s not happening on our streets will backfire if that plan is executed.
It’s not war-mongering or hateful to think this way. Nobody LIKES war. War is hell and it is hell for a reason. It kills innocent people, it creates economic hardships, and it keeps our country’s brightest and best in harm’s way.
But it’s reality. Turning away now (no matter what your originalist position is) will force you and I to fight years down the road whether you’re politcally anti-war, liberal, conservative, etc.
Steve,
Why do you think the Iranians took the hostages in 1979? As Ron Paul explained at one of the debates, it was blowback for the CIA overthrowing the democratically-elected Mossadegh in 1953.
And why did we overthrow Mossadegh? Oil.
Steve, these are poor, militarily weak countries who want to be left alone. We should leave them alone. There are social aspects to some of them we don’t approve of, but the best way to effect those kind of changes is through trade, example and persuasion, not through force of arms.
Steve, as a thought experiment: let’s say Ron Paul becomes president and immediately withdraws our aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf. Then he withdraws remaining U.S. troops from Kuwait, Saudi and Iraq over the following six months. He then reduces or eliminates tariffs and sanctions on trade to Iraq and Iran.
What do you think the reaction of the Muslim world would be? What effects would our withdrawal have on recruitment for al-Qaeda and similar organizations?
I suspect this development would be viewed positively by Muslims around the world, and those that hated us because were invading and bombing their countries would want to talk, trade, and befriend us. Not destroy us.
After all, that’s what happened with Vietnam.
“Nobody LIKES war.”
Bill Kristol. Michael Ledeen. Douglas Feith. I could go one. They all like war and they all make money off war.
Buck said:
“Why do you think the Iranians took the hostages in 1979?”
Oh for God Sake, this is common knowledge, because after Jimmy Carter stabbed the Shah in the back, he then let him into our country (such a peace-loving activist, eh?) to get cancer treatment at the Mayo Clinic in 1979.
Basically Carter and Mondale couldn’t pick one side of the war going on in Iran itself and consequently we paid for it.
Now if it were Reagan, I guarantee, the new government would have never deposed of the Shah.
The road to independent thinking:
Turn off FoxNews and CNN
Read books/articles/blogs by liberals, conservatives. libertarians, and anarchists. Whatever.
Learn the differences between modern liberals, libertines, and libertarians.
Read history by authors with varied opinions. Study the words of our founders. Understand how much of history just goes round and round.
I think you’re a nice fellow, but like most of us, you do not have all the answers and some of your conclusions are simply incorrect. History is repeating itself. Do the homework. Discover the parallels. Once you do, you’ll understand.
Well Steve, let’s let wikipedia decide:
“The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States that was triggered by a group of militant university students who took over the American diplomatic mission in Tehran on November 4, 1979. The students were supported by Iran’s post-revolutionary regime that was in the midst of solidifying power. The students objected to U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.”
That’s Reza Pahlavi, the man who our CIA (along with British intel) put into power after the democratically-elected Mossadegh was overturned in a CIA-funded coup (because he nationalized the British and American oil fields there). That’s classic blowback, Steve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
Steve wrote:
“Most liberals and anti-war people and 9/11 conspiracy theorists say that we brought attacks on because we kept intervening – and why do they think we did that? Oil, of course…My argument is quite the opposite.”
Well, you do not dispute that the US/UK overthrow of Mossadegh in ’53 was over oil, do you?
Go here and read the sections “Plot to depose Mossadegh” and “Operation Ajax.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
Well Buck,
How about a little perspective. If you read down a bit in that same article you will see it explained:
“The Carter administration attempted to mitigate the damage by finding a new relationship with the de facto Iranian government and by continuing military cooperation in hopes that the situation would stabilize. On October 22, 1979, however, the U.S. permitted the Shah, who was ill with cancer, to come to the Mayo Clinic for medical treatment.”
Notice the part about “military cooperation?” It takes a desire on the other part in order for someone else to “cooperate.”
And as I said before, the new government overthrew the Shah and Carter turned a blind eye to it and AT THEIR REQUEST continued to volunteer our military.
The “U.S. Influence” had more to do with our inability to deny the Shah medical treatment on our soil since the new radical government that Carter stupidly began playing footsies with didn’t want it that way. “U.S. Influence” does not mean the military assistance they themselves asked for.
“The ‘U.S. Influence’ had more to do with our inability to deny the Shah medical treatment on our soil”
Giving the Shah treatment at Mayo was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but the bale of hay was putting the Shah in power over the will of the Iranian people (Mossadegh was democratically-elected, remember), then propping the Shah up for 26 years. And, in the extremely reasonable view of the Iranian people at that time, the UK and US had been stealing oil revenue from them for those past 26 years. You wouldn’t like it if someone did that to your country, either (remember Mossadegh was deposed because he nationalized the oil fields and wouldn’t give the Brits a big enough cut).
Does the above situation’s description, incidentally, remind you of any current situations…? Hint: Saddam was taken out because he was about to begin accepting oil payments in Euros instead of dollars, and since we were taken off the gold standard by Nixon in ’71, the U.S. dollar is essentially a petrodollar. Which means when people stop paying for oil in it, we are screwed.
Did you see in the news a couple of weeks ago when Iran began asking Japan to pay for its oil in yen, and Japan, feigning reluctance, agreed? History repeats itself.
We need Ron Paul in the White House more than most people realize. We have an economic crisis coming, and soon.
By the way, Steve –
you mention in the original post that this comment crakced you up:
“Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically.”
There’s a name for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension
Dear God. All these posts before I even got home from work. I can’t go point-by-point due the number of comments, but just a few general observations here.
First – Steve, the list of attacks against Americans that you posted in your intial post are all acts of war. If anything we failed to respond in a manner that was sutiably forceable enough to deter future attacks. Clinton and Carter were primarily responsible for our lack of action during their tenures.
This lack of response proves a point. The most hysterical statement made in this thread was by Buckwheat when he said, “Muslim nations will be happy to play the game “you leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone.”
Where in the history of the US-Terrorist saga has this been born out? It hasn’t been. You can argue all day long that these attacks against the US were self-inflicted, but it doesn’t hold water. How do you define US self-interest? Were we wrong to get into WWII? If you subscribe to common theories, FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked in order to give him the right to enter the war on the side of the Allies. What were we supposed to do? Give into isolationist tendencies, sit back and allow Hitler to goose-step across Europe and Imperial Japan across Asia?
Why is our struggle against terrorists in the Middle East any less important than our struggle to defeat the Nazis in World War II? Should we have allowed Britain to fall and hoped that Hitler wouldn’t come after us? How ridiculous.
Similarly, are we just supposed to allow the Middle East fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and Iran without an attempt? So very, very naive.
I admire Ron Paul for a lot of things. He’s a member of my homestate delegation. And let it be known that I have voted Libertarian before. But a fundamental tenant of the Libertarian Party is to provide for the security of the nation. They don’t want government up their asses on everything, but one of the few places where the government does have an inherently necessary role, in their view, is in the defense of the nation and its citizenry.
I guess the question is this – does the Libertarian view of government and self-defense automatically preclude a pre-emptive foreign policy? If so, then Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. Because with foreign policy/defense, as with everything in life, it is better to be proactive in order to head things off before they have a chance to destroy or hurt you.
I guess there’s a lot more that I want to say in reaction to this thread – especially about the Shah arguments. All conspiracy theory aside – the US government has to make a serious assessment of national interests when it comes to matters of security. And sitting back and allowing bad things to happen to others on the supposition that the bad guys will “leave us alone” is a big gamble with possible catastrophic ramifications for our nation.
“I guess the question is this – does the Libertarian view of government and self-defense automatically preclude a pre-emptive foreign policy?”
Doesn’t preclude it but it sets the bar pretty high. Iraq 2003, nowhere close. Iran 2007, even further. WWI certainly wouldn’t have met the bar.
WWII probably meets it, but if WWII was so much in American national interest, why did FDR, as you noted, have to provoke (oil blockade to Japan et al.) and then allow an attack on US troops to get Congress to vote for it?
If a war is in the U.S national interest, you should be able to convince the people, speaking through their elected representatives in Congress, to pass a resolution declaring war. This is the process clearly laid out in the Constitution, a process U.S. presidents have been bypassing since Korea.
It’s time to get back to the Founders’ vision of American national interest and away from Bill Kristol’s.
“The most hysterical statement made in this thread was by Buckwheat when he said, “Muslim nations will be happy to play the game “you leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone.”
Where in the history of the US-Terrorist saga has this been born out? It hasn’t been.”
Sure it has. Muslim countries would much rather trade with us than fight us. What you have to realize is that we, the West, are the primary aggressor in the West-Islam conflict.
It’s pretty perverse to see the Muslim world as the ones throwing the first punch against the West in modern times. The British, French, and Russians treated the Arab World like a chessboard in imperial days — the Algerians were not attacking Paris, the Arabs were not attacking London, and the Tajiks were not attacking Moscow. It was the other way around.
In the past sixty years, we’ve had the Russians invade Afghanistan (et al.), tens of thousands of American troops in Saudi Arabia (holy soil, to Muslims), US-UK sanctions against and bombing of Iraq, US-UK overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh in Iran, Marines in Beirut, and now three aircraft carriers aimed right at Iran, a country that does not want war with us and does not threaten us.
Their response is the response of the weak: terrorism. All the Muslim terrorism in Europe and America over the past 60 years has killed fewer than 10,000 people.
That’s 10,000 too many, but we killed far more Iraqis alone than that every year of the 1990s, through bombings and sanctions (which tended to kill the young and the elderly). Why *wouldn’t* they be pissed off by that? How would we feel if someone did it to us?
Congress would not vote for war with Iran, so the president will do it extraconstitutionally. We are set for some kind of Gulf of Tonkin incident which will be used as a pretext for war with Iran. They’re really not making it hard to figure out.
Ron Paul would turn our ships around and send them away from Iran. And then he’d reduce or remove sanctions with Iran and we’d trade with them. And it would work great. After all, trading instead of bombing has worked well with Vietnam.
“Steve, the list of attacks against Americans that you posted in your intial post are all acts of war.”
Philip, you consider the 1979 taking of U.S. hostages an act of war. Do you not also consider the CIA’s 1953 coup against Mossadegh, who was democratically-elected, an act of war?
“WWII probably meets it, but if WWII was so much in American national interest, why did FDR, as you noted, have to provoke (oil blockade to Japan et al.) and then allow an attack on US troops to get Congress to vote for it?”
Because the Congress was filled with isolationists like you. You have set the bar so high that the Revolutionary War was the only justifiable war we have ever fought (or do you argue with that too?).
There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. You have shown yourself to be either an isolationist or a pacifist. Which is it? Does your line of thinking allow any defense of the American people or do you want to just put us on an idealistic, imaginary plane in the sky and hope that nothing happens?
I feel for the Libertarians. I wasn’t a huge fan of NAFTA, I don’t like government intrusion into private lives on many matters (smoke your pot dude!), and I fully adhere to the capitalist/low tax school of thought.
But I don’t understand where you are coming from on foreign policy. To say that WWII “probably” meets the criteria definitely shows that you are in an alternate universe. A universe where German is spoken in Manhattan, Philly and Miami. And we all speak Japanese here in Texas and out on the West Coast.
No war has ever been incredibly popular. FDR had his detractors after the body bags began to pile up and rationing took effect. If you are going to use popular American opinion as your judge of whether to go to war, we would never defend the US, or we would stop half-assed in the middle of many conflicts.
I don’t think Ron Paul would subscribe to your theory of WWII. I think you are speaking from a world of your own. I thank you for your contributions to this thread, but I think you have taken a single position to an extreme and have not thought your way throught it very well.
Buckwheat said:
“Muslim nations will be happy to play the game “you leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone.””
Hmmm, I don’t think so.
Devil Dog –
If we left the Muslim world alone militarily and engaged them economically, which countries do you feel would try to attack the West? How and why would they do so?
Iraq was one of the most powerful militaries in the Muslim world, if not the most powerful. We crushed them in days in their own country. Iran is one of the most powerful as well. They spent $7 billion last year on defense; the U.S. spent 75 times that. How do these nations pose a threat? The only way is terrorism, which is a) not an existential threat, as I noted above, and b) provoked by the very offensive actions you claim we need as defense to terrorism.
I see no evidence to support the idea that Muslim countries won’t leave us alone if we leave them alone, and the idea that those nations have the military capability to attack us is not borne out by the spreadsheet.
“If you are going to use popular American opinion as your judge of whether to go to war, we would never defend the US”
False, if we were attacked on our home soil the American people would want the invaders repelled. See Revolutionary War and War of 1812, for example.
Wars on foreign soil are much tougher to justify. You think I set the bar for war too high, and I think you set it too low. So why not just do what the constitution requires and allow the American people to speak, through their elected representatives in congress, on whether war should be declared or not?
If you can make your case before the Congress, we go to war. If you can’t, we don’t. What’s wrong with that? Nothing.
Philip, can I ask for a reply to this post? I am genuinely curious to know your answer, and feel it cuts to the core of this issue:
“Steve, the list of attacks against Americans that you posted in your intial post are all acts of war.”
Philip, you consider the 1979 taking of U.S. hostages an act of war. Do you not also consider the CIA’s 1953 coup against Mossadegh, who was democratically-elected, an act of war?
Steve wrote:
“We have [Ahmedinejad] who has in recent years ran around claiming to have a nuke.”
When has Ahmedinejad claimed to have nuclear weapons?
It’s been busy in here.
What I’d like to know, from those liberals here that have been saying the war is bs and should be ended, what would you have done differently than GW? What would you change about foreign policy specifically and how would we be safer? And if the answer is, play nice, that’s not cutting it.
Jennifer,
I am no liberal, believe me (I’m a Ron Paul supporter), but what we would have done differently is not go to war in Iraq in the first place.
You can see all of Ron Paul’s foreign policy papers and speeches here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=10
Buckwheat –
“On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iranian scientists working at the pilot facility at Natanz had successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, using a small cascade of 164 gas centrifuges. In the televised address from the city of Mashhad he said, “I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology”.
So Buckwheat, tell me before America “intervenes” and removes the threat posed to the entire world, what will we need to know first?
Do you have to see it? Does Ahmadinejad have to show you personally and give you a detailed book-report on how he plans to use it?
Seriously, do we just turn away or do we take it out before it progresses or do you think it will not progress if we stick our necks in the sand?
Steve,
Here’s a link to the story you cited above in case anyone needs it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5336802
As the story says, this was nuclear reactor technology, not nuclear weapon. Two different things.
“The enrichment program unveiled Tuesday is capable of processing very small amounts of low-grade enriched uranium. Experts say the output is not close to the amount or the purity needed for a nuclear weapon.”
Steve,
We faced down the Soviet Union which had 40,000 nuclear warheads. And now we’re supposed to get worked up over a third world country with a pitiful military and NO nuclear weapons?
And, as usual, government creates the problems it then claims it has to solve for us. Ahmedinejad is mainly trying to build a nuclear weapon because we are threatening to attack him.
Buckwheat -
You asked:
Philip, you consider the 1979 taking of U.S. hostages an act of war. Do you not also consider the CIA’s 1953 coup against Mossadegh, who was democratically-elected, an act of war?
I’ll have to get back you on that one after I research. I’ll be honest and say that I have no more than a passing familiarity with the situation and wouldn’t want to create some half-assed answer. Do I think that everything the US has done in the past (as regards foreign policy) has been correct? No.
There have been some really inexcusable actions take by our government. But the list that Steve provided is a litany of incidents that leads us to the point we are today. Taken as a whole, these events offer us sufficient grounds for considering Islamic extremists to be a genuine threat to our national interests and pursuing action against them.
I’ve enjoyed this thread folks.
Steve (and Jennifer and Devil Dog),
I have a VERY short book I’d like you to check out, if you can find it. It’s titled ‘Islamic Terrorist Attacks in Japan.’
Lord knows I pray for their safety, but the mind races to figure out why a nation almost as ‘rich,’ and almost as ‘free’ as us has been spared a train bombing or 9/11 style attack. They certainly qualify as ‘infidels.’ In fact they don’t even recognize the same God as Muslims, Jews and Christians do.
Hmmm…I wonder if maybe some of the foreign policy geniuses out there can explain it to me in small words. I’m sure it has nothing at all to do with the fact that about all Japan does with the Middle East is trade? What could it be?
Peace be with you all.
Japan is not a leader in Democracy.
The entire world has always relied on the United States for aid, support, and as an ally. The United States supports the entire world through trade and economic relief.
Moreover; Japan did not intervene and help to moderate the violence imposed on the entire world by France when they were the true interveners.
What makes me sick here is that all these theories boil down to one overall objective — blame America and makes excuses for terrorists.
Sorry, these folks supporting Ron Paul want the same thing we all want, peace. However; they want to believe that turning a blind eye is going to miraculously make it all better when we see by the actions of Carter and Clinton (both Democrats in the White House since 1979) what “doing nothing” results in.
Peace to you as well.
Thanks for replying, Philip — I thought this was a good thread, too. I’ll keep reading this blog.
Buckwheat
Steve –
“…blame America and makes excuses for terrorists.”
Wrong, blame bad American *governmental policy*.
The American people aren’t the problem, the policies of its government are.
Sending the message that :
“Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically.” (“neocon” – “historically”?)
Maybe we could counter with Churchill’s :
“Appeasers feed the alligators hoping they’ll be eaten last.”
“The American people aren’t the problem, the policies of its government are.”
Buckwheat, the government that did all of these wrong things were elected in a free and open Democracy.
George Bush was elected twice in Presidential elections.
Ronald Reagan won two landslides.
RON PAUL COMES IN LAST IN MOST OF THE POLLS….
We choose who our President and Congressional representatives are, so yes YOU ARE BLAMING AMERICA.
Shawmut:
Once again, excellent comment and awesome quote! I love that one.
By the way, I should have put quotes around “wrong things” — I do not think we did anything to provoke 9/11 nor do I blame America for nuts like Saddam Hussein.