Ron Paul defends the position he raised in the SC Debate

Terrorists are evil, vile so-called human beings, there's no need to tip-toe around them so they won't go after you, if you do they have won, that's what terrorism is, they scare you, to get their own way.

 

I'm not debating you on this, I agree that terrorists are going to hate America no matter what. I'm talking about the support they receive from mainstream Muslims when America intervenes in the ME. If there's no support for their attacks managing them becomes easier.

America could improve its effectiveness for stopping terrorist attacks if its resources weren't spread across wars in two seperate countries. If America pulled out of Iraq and finished what it started in Afghanistan it could focus its efforts on securing itself at home and gathering intelligence abroad. That's how you stop a terrorist attack. Bombing sovereign nations isn't a solution, it only inflames the problem. Referring to Iraq here, not Afghanistan. Furthermore, you don't need to invade a country to knock out its terrorists. America can kill as many terrorists as it wants, that's not the problem. The problem is when it involves itself in the affairs of sovereign nations.

I was referring to the reasons used to go to war with Iraq, sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with you that America has to step in sometimes, but I don't think Iraq was one of those times.

There are justified reasons for America stepping into a conflict, Darfur is surely one of them, so was Rwanda. The fact that the UN involved itself in Rwanda, albeit in a limited capacity, shows that there was support around the world for intervention. This wasn't the case for Iraq and it isn't the case for Iran. Nothing good is going to come from America intervening with these nations which is what I've been trying to explain in these threads.

 

Of course it wasn't the case for Iraq - koffee and his family along with some countries had too much secret ties to Iraq's oil for food program. This program alone probably was a big wealth builder for those so against going in Iraq. Why is it that so many deny the facts or does it again go back to the end justifies the means?

 

I'm not denying anything. Besides, how does food for oil make the Iraq invasion any less wrong? The international community was still against it, hundreds of millions of people who had nothing to gain or lose from America invading. The justifications for it were formed from lies the Bush administration knowlingy bought into and then relayed to congress and the American people.

 

Wow, lets bomb anybody who raises gas prices, it'll only cost us a few thousand disposable lives??? When we go to war we don't prevent loss of life, war IS loss of lives. For the greater good, yes, but you're saying the greater good is to bring down gas prices, help our economy, and prevent loss of life. You're a sad reminder of how easily we as a nation (oh no, I just got the blame America label ) justify war today.

There is no way a protracted war is good for any economy, and I don't think the loss of lives math adds up. How many lives have we lost in the war on terror compared to how many we lost from them before we started this war on terror that could go on indefinately?

 

then those are lies that even your liberal buds such as shrillary bought into as well...if you are going to say they were lies, then blame those that lied, i.e. the CIA..if they were lied to, then Bush was lied to as well...remember, congress votes to go to war, not just the president.

 

That's exactly what I suggested! Got more strawmen for me?

How many lives did we lose in pearl harbor, compared to how many were lost fighting and winning ww2? I'm not sure of your point here.

The results of Rwanda and Darfur simply show that the UN is ineffective. People say they "care" but when it comes to doing something; who is the only country on this planet willing and able to do it? Time and time again?

 

The Bush administration wasn't lied to, they used faulty intelligence to form the reasoning behind the war while there was plenty of strong intelligence available for them to interpret. They cherry picked the information they needed to get the PR machine rolling and then turned it on congress and the American people. I'm not going to reach for excuses to blame anyone other than those who were involved. This isn't a partisan issue for me, it's not even a political one. I respect the truth enough to keep which party I support out of my mind when evaluating a situation.

I find it hilarious that you think I'm a liberal by the way. I'm conservative on as many things as I am liberal. If anything I lean towards the libertarian party.

What's your point? I was talking about the international community not supporting the Iraq invasion and you're talking about people wanting the US to help in Darfur? I don't follow.

 

Everyone from the previous administration thought the same thing at the time. From 1996 on, everyone said "Saddam has a weapons program" - there was no doubt about it; at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 on this; but saying that bush lied or was giving out false information is simply a mis-statement of reality.

 

The UN went over there how many times? The US still attacked believing they had WMDs. The intelligence previous administrations used was just as faulty, they shouldn't be let off the hook either.

 

And how many times was the UN prevented from looking where it needed to look. If you weren't hiding something, wouldn't you let them go where they were required to go? I can create a very logical scenario as to why the world (and saddam) thought he had weapons, but he probably didn't have them any longer. Its not difficult, really. I bet you Saddam thought he had weapons to hide, too.

That's fine; blame the CIA for sucking. But to say that bush lied is a lie, in itself, isn't it?

I'm making that point that you think isolationism is the way go to. Let people sort out their problems. So I point to recent examples of letting people sort out their own problems - you get a lame attempt at UN assistance and the result is thousands or millions of people dying. And this is somehow a good policy. But we aren't involved, everything is hunky dory. Right?

 

Making it less wrong? Huh? didn't say it was less wrong, just showing you those who were against it had a financial reason to be - they are corrupt evil people.

If you don't get it, no one can help you.

As far as the "International community" being against it, take out the muslim countries, take out those who hate the USA because we help Israel, take out those who think that no one should intervene into anything unless they themselves are the ones in trouble, then see what international community was for going into iraq.

 

Maybe you're right, maybe I should reevaluate the way I look at it. All I know is that I don't like the way it turned out and I don't think it had to turn out the way it did considering the intelligence that was around before the war. It was a bad decision and it isn't doing anything to help stop terrorism. If anything it's helping it grow.

Hold on a minute, I never said isolationism was the answer. I've been saying that respecting the disorder of the ME political climate and staying out of it would benefit America along with the ME. If you read my posts I've said many times that there are instances where intervention is justifiable. Stacking regimes to serve American interests isn't my idea of justifiable intervention.

No, I understand your point.

The world supported America after 9/11. There were plenty of well wishers who changed their view of America after it invaded Iraq. Trust me, I speak with a lot of them.