Can Ron Paul actually contain Terrorism with Diplomacy.

This is a question I ask and one the Nominees spoke of as well...Hezbollah is working to perpetrate an attack from Venezuela through Mexico, and yes their largest embassy sits on it's soil. Al - Shabaab an affiliate of AQAP is also aimed at destroying America, and works inside our country, not outside.

If anyone needs reference material for substantiation of either of the above statements just ask.

The question is can he or any other potential Candidate thwart an attack aimed at America with diplomatic solutions, whether it be foreign or domestic, or are we past time to use a peaceful approach?

reply to post by Daedal


What propaganda do you not buy into?

Think of how much safer we'd be if all the troops in all the different countries were brought home to defend our own country. Plus the taliban attack troops in foreign countries because we are invading their country.

Our lack of diplomacy is making us into a laughing stock by countries like russia and iran which we are about to go to war with. One day of a paul presideny would smooth things over with iran, my proof is presstv is kind to ron paul in their articles, and rt is kind to the alternative media.

reply to post by DIDtm


Well let's just say you are correct, and it is propaganda. And then we are attacked, what then?

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by DIDtm

 

Well let's just say you are correct, and it is propaganda. And then we are attacked, what then?

We'd have troops in the country to defend the country. Amazing concept, no? Instead of them being in yemen.

Originally posted by filosophia
Think of how much safer we'd be if all the troops in all the different countries were brought home to defend our own country. Plus the taliban attack troops in foreign countries because we are invading their country.

I don't know if we really would be more safe or if it would be more dangerous.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by DIDtm

 

Well let's just say you are correct, and it is propaganda. And then we are attacked, what then?

We'd have troops in the country to defend the country. Amazing concept, no? Instead of them being in yemen.

Defend the country from what? Have you thought that may be they were defending the country to some degree, or would it be better if they came here to attack us instead, or are you acknowledging a threat?

The facts of life is this: Bad things happen...even attacks from other countries...But what is the best way to solve this? Promotion of freedom and free enterprise...Not war and nation building...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
The facts of life is this: Bad things happen...even attacks from other countries...But what is the best way to solve this? Promotion of freedom and free enterprise...Not war and nation building...

I agree..but that isn't the question.

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by jeichelberg
The facts of life is this: Bad things happen...even attacks from other countries...But what is the best way to solve this? Promotion of freedom and free enterprise...Not war and nation building...

I agree..but that isn't the question.

Well, I am sorry...let me repeat your question...

The question is can he or any other potential Candidate thwart an attack aimed at America with diplomatic solutions, whether it be foreign or domestic, or are we past time to use a peaceful approach?

Care to elaborate how I did not answer your question?

The United States military is such a force I don't think we should really be concerned with #.

On 9/11 three financial buildings were collapsed as well as part of the pentagon, the American economy barely felt it. What we did feel was the prolonged war that arises from this, based on fear.

In return we killed hundreds of thousands of people. We delivered, ten fold.

Of all things an American should fear, one is definitely not the military domination of any other nation on Earth, or any combination of them, simply... we pwn them.

Ron Paul is right, if we did not meddle in the affairs of other nations, they would not care about us.

We are something to be feared, no one will mess with us as long as we do not give them a reason that involves their very livelihood.

reply to post by jeichelberg


Sure..First I want to say that I support Ron Paul..and believe in his theories.

My question is do you believe that withdrawing troops from hostile territories will escalate an attck on America, or will these terrorist groups continue to mark the US..

I on the other hand OP think it is a valid question...

The answer is no....

Thats right NO


Here is why... it is the fallacy of the Libertarian mindset to a slight degree..... so many different ways come to mind and none are appropriate ... I apologize for how this sounds but the words fail me..

The idea of treating everyone fairly and as free people is great...

In theory...

I application I can only say this... I reference the Probability Broach in this respect... dueling was allowed... this enable a mechanism for correction that is not present in most of the freedom loving minds...

Yes we as a nation would and will have to have duels with these nations.... it sad and dirty but in the end, there rulers like all other rulers want not only their share but our share of happiness and success as well...

give them an inch and they take a mile...

We have to give our enemies a chance to back down ... after that no more mister nice guy because they have chosen their fate... Us or them...

Those that back down we can work with but acknowledge they are on probation with us and will screw us over if we pull chamberlains ...

None of the candidates have exhibited that trait...

not a single has said... Listen my fellow tribesmen I have climbed to the top of the canopy and have news...

"We are going the wrong way"
"We need to hurry because of the rushing waters"

nada single one has vision only games they are playing....

I hope Ron Paul does come out swinging ... his best bet is to find an adviser who disagrees with him on foreign policy so the to of them can argue out and come up with an actual plan....

to the other question as well...

NO

What Paul is asserting is non-interventionism, not necessarily (or at least more than) diplomacy. What he is articulating is that our presence in these countries cause MORE of a threat to us, than not being there at all in the first place. In 2001 the "terrorists" themselves (remember there are many who think that was an inside job ) said they attacked us not because we are free and prosperous (Like the media repeats to us over and over), but because they want us the hell out of their business. So we go to Afghanistan (and Paul agreed with that initially) then bomb the crap out of Iraq simultaneously for reasons that had nothing to do with 9-11, but rather WMD's that Iraq didn't have. Do you feel safer now, or do you feel we just pissed some people off?

I think the problem is that people have a HUGE problem with looking at things in perspective. Americans are so quick to agree with bombing the crap out of another country because they *might* have a WMD, yet we would obliterate ANY country on the face of this earth if they tried bombing us because we have thousands of nukes. We STILL don't tolerate Russian spies in our county etc, yet we're totally justified in doing much worse in other countries because our govt tells us it's warranted.

reply to post by Daedal


I want to say yes. Not just with Paul, but with any leader.
Here's my reasoning.
Terrorism is just a tactic used by weaker enemies. If diplomacy can appease these weaker enemies, then we wouldn't see the threat.
War is just the final action when politicians fail to do their job.

My 2 cents.

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

Sure..First I want to say that I support Ron Paul..and believe in his theories.

My question is do you believe that withdrawing troops from hostile territories will escalate an attck on America, or will these terrorist groups continue to mark the US..

No, because the fear mongering was used to get us to go to war, and it is used to keep us in war. American troops are dying in afghanstan because they are in afghanistan. Bring them home, they are safer, plus they will then be in their own country able to protect americas borders.

reply to post by Daedal


no, because if there were armies of people willing to commit terror attacks in the US, wouldnt they have walked across our open and undefended southern boarder already? I love the look on army sheeps when i ask them this. Or when I tell them if they were actually "defending our freedoms" they would have been working towards stopping bush and obama from destroying our freedoms for the terrorists...

THIS IS A SPOON

reply to post by Daedal


There are threats from all across the globe, if you believe MSM...Will the risk of attack on American Soil increase if we pull our military forces from bases across the globe? Absolutely not...We do not need a military anymore...it can all be operated by a push of button...

reply to post by filosophia


Protect American borders from what?

reply to post by Daedal
Maybe there really isn't that many terrorists in the world?

Many folks at this site believe 9/11 was an inside job and probably even more don't bebelieve the British bombings.

Al- CIAda....do/did they really exist?

If we're not attacking Muslim countries around the world, maybe there wouldn't be any or very few incidents of "terror"?