Post by kingtroll on Dec 30, 2007 22:51:28 GMT -5
simplyg123 simplyg123 is offline
Spirit Walker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
simplyg123 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to simplyg123
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgitsfletch View Post
Introduction
Look, it would be near impossible for any government in Iraq to resent us more than Saddam and his Ba'ath regime. The previous years of Iraq were the effect of years of dictatorship and extreme paranoia by a man who knew he was wanted dead.
Unintended Consequences
I've read a few books on Saddam, his rise to power and his need to keep it were incredible, and let us not forget that we are part of the reason he became so powerful, in our hopes of hurting Iran by supporting Iraq when they went to war. He later went on to gas thousands of his own people, and play cat and mouse with us over weapons inspections until we finally toppled him beginning in 2003.
History has shown us time and time again that our interventionism in the Middle East typically does more harm than good. We wanted to protect oil interests, so we toppled a democratically elected leader in Iran. It's lead to extreme resentment in Iran and surrounding countries, and lead to the hostage crisis of 1979. It also helped fuel radicalism and religious dictatorship within that country.
We supported Afghanistan in the 1980s, trying to combat the Soviets. While the Afghan army played a role in weakening the USSR, it also came back to bite us when that same group, the Taliban, became supportive of people like OBL, and once again began to abuse power and harm its own people. Also, opium harvesting has risen exponentially since we went back to Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and I believe they are the biggest producer of opium in the world.
Analysis
Without even addressing one of the biggest issues of the region, Israel, it should become fairly obvious that unintended consequences have arisen every time we try and interfere within the Middle East. We prop up dictatorships and evil groups for our own interests via money and guns, and then those same guns are used against us years down the line when those same groups don't want to follow our command any longer. With each excursion and unintended consequences that follow, we also pay the price by the deaths of soldiers, and by the massive costs for waging large scale wars half way across the world.
Ron Paul's call for non-interventionism isn't just about the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible action in Iran. It's about years down the line. We need to stop making allies with questionable groups worldwide, and in this region in particular, because history shows that it comes back to hurt us every time. We need to focus on our own borders, on using our troops only for an imminent threat, and for being more responsible with our actions worldwide.
Should we stay or should we go?
Even if we packed our bags and came home from Iraq tomorrow, and even if the worst case did occur and Iraq fell back into an evil dictatorship, it's not nearly as bad as the harm done as we stay there. We need to concentrate on the original goal of foreign intervention, eliminating the terrorists, not on creating more terrorists with an occupation of Iraq when so many want us to leave. I guess a good way to look at it is like this: looking back, was Saddam a threat? The WMDs thing was overblown if not completely false, the army was toppled in days, and now the only people still fighting us over there are insurgents, not an actual organized military. The imagined threat of a dictatorship taking hold that causes more harm than what we cause with our current action is just that, imagined, unreal. Right now, we spend about $177M a day, lose about 2-3 soldiers a day, and create god knows how many insurgents with our intervention on their land. Explain to me how that kind of financial and physical damage is going to continue when we bring those troops home?
This post just addresses the Iraq/Foreign Policy aspect of the Paul campaign, I'm sure me and other people can help explain any other areas. What are your top issues? What specific things matter to you more than anything else? A more direct approach to the areas that matter to you will let us show you how Paul is the best candidate out there.
Sorry i somehow missed every request for me to reply to this, honestly there is not much to say, you have said it all, and for the most part i agree. I think this is a good post. Very fair and informational. + rep given
Spirit Walker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
simplyg123 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to simplyg123
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgitsfletch View Post
Introduction
Look, it would be near impossible for any government in Iraq to resent us more than Saddam and his Ba'ath regime. The previous years of Iraq were the effect of years of dictatorship and extreme paranoia by a man who knew he was wanted dead.
Unintended Consequences
I've read a few books on Saddam, his rise to power and his need to keep it were incredible, and let us not forget that we are part of the reason he became so powerful, in our hopes of hurting Iran by supporting Iraq when they went to war. He later went on to gas thousands of his own people, and play cat and mouse with us over weapons inspections until we finally toppled him beginning in 2003.
History has shown us time and time again that our interventionism in the Middle East typically does more harm than good. We wanted to protect oil interests, so we toppled a democratically elected leader in Iran. It's lead to extreme resentment in Iran and surrounding countries, and lead to the hostage crisis of 1979. It also helped fuel radicalism and religious dictatorship within that country.
We supported Afghanistan in the 1980s, trying to combat the Soviets. While the Afghan army played a role in weakening the USSR, it also came back to bite us when that same group, the Taliban, became supportive of people like OBL, and once again began to abuse power and harm its own people. Also, opium harvesting has risen exponentially since we went back to Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and I believe they are the biggest producer of opium in the world.
Analysis
Without even addressing one of the biggest issues of the region, Israel, it should become fairly obvious that unintended consequences have arisen every time we try and interfere within the Middle East. We prop up dictatorships and evil groups for our own interests via money and guns, and then those same guns are used against us years down the line when those same groups don't want to follow our command any longer. With each excursion and unintended consequences that follow, we also pay the price by the deaths of soldiers, and by the massive costs for waging large scale wars half way across the world.
Ron Paul's call for non-interventionism isn't just about the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible action in Iran. It's about years down the line. We need to stop making allies with questionable groups worldwide, and in this region in particular, because history shows that it comes back to hurt us every time. We need to focus on our own borders, on using our troops only for an imminent threat, and for being more responsible with our actions worldwide.
Should we stay or should we go?
Even if we packed our bags and came home from Iraq tomorrow, and even if the worst case did occur and Iraq fell back into an evil dictatorship, it's not nearly as bad as the harm done as we stay there. We need to concentrate on the original goal of foreign intervention, eliminating the terrorists, not on creating more terrorists with an occupation of Iraq when so many want us to leave. I guess a good way to look at it is like this: looking back, was Saddam a threat? The WMDs thing was overblown if not completely false, the army was toppled in days, and now the only people still fighting us over there are insurgents, not an actual organized military. The imagined threat of a dictatorship taking hold that causes more harm than what we cause with our current action is just that, imagined, unreal. Right now, we spend about $177M a day, lose about 2-3 soldiers a day, and create god knows how many insurgents with our intervention on their land. Explain to me how that kind of financial and physical damage is going to continue when we bring those troops home?
This post just addresses the Iraq/Foreign Policy aspect of the Paul campaign, I'm sure me and other people can help explain any other areas. What are your top issues? What specific things matter to you more than anything else? A more direct approach to the areas that matter to you will let us show you how Paul is the best candidate out there.
Sorry i somehow missed every request for me to reply to this, honestly there is not much to say, you have said it all, and for the most part i agree. I think this is a good post. Very fair and informational. + rep given
