Can Ron Paul actually contain Terrorism with Diplomacy.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
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

They have, the drug cartels go back and forth daily.

reply to post by ripcontrol


No to what?

ETA...Can terrorism be contained with diplomacy...I get it...Well, that is essentially my answer also...although, I would rather seek diplomatic means first...You cannot set up dictatorships and puppet governments (i.e., Noriega, Hussein, Qaddafi) and not expect that to come back and bite you in the tuckus...it will...

But this is why we need to remain non-interventionist...Diplomacy does travel only so far, though...I understand there are people out there still who need to hold onto their binkies and comfort blankets (i.e., material possessions) to the point of defending them to the death...

reply to post by freedom12


I disagree with that...Saudi Arabia disseminates literature world wide, it's an ideology.

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by filosophia

 

Protect American borders from what?

You said it yourself in one of your posts, the drug cartels.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by filosophia

 

Protect American borders from what?

You said it yourself in one of your posts, the drug cartels.

Okay, but that's my response.

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by filosophia

 

Protect American borders from what?

You said it yourself in one of your posts, the drug cartels.

Okay, but that's my response.

If it's the truth why should it be any different?

reply to post by filosophia
Because it's our closest threat, but not the only one. I must say Minnesota banks are doing a good thing by shutting down wire transfers to Somalia..

reply to post by Daedal


Come on thats a huge coptout.
we are talking about muslims/"terrorists", not drug runners.

Also, the purpose of the drug cartels isnt to commit war/terror on the us. When you think about it, it would be really dumb if a drug cartels main goal was to kill the people who consume their goods and make them lavishly rich?

Dont get me wrong, i think it would be great if our army was defending our boarders from both.

But like i said, how come there havent been streams of muslim terrorist coming across the boarder and committing acts of terror?
I mean when you really think about it, for a group supposedly caoable of pulling off 9/11, this would be mear childs play

terrorist is a word america invented, to take our rights away

reply to post by VonDoomen

Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs

Source

A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United States — including a stronghold in the Washington area — in an effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said. Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El Salvador’s notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South Americans — mostly gang members — into the United States. Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries, carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaults — including at least seven killings in Virginia and a machete attack on a 16-year-old in Alexandria that severely mutilated his hands.

The attack will be cyber...

reply to post by Daedal

Do you think Iran is a threat to America? What the media fails to tell anyone is that even *IF* Iran had a nuke they don't have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that would come anywhere NEAR us. Let's say hypothetically they do. Do you think they would attempt to shoot off that 1 nuke they have in their possession at us? Are you worried they might have a "dirty bomb"? If you're worried about that, then you should be paying closer attention to places like Pakistan, not Iran.

Iran if anything, is worried about Israel because it knows Israel would destroy them, hence their constant rhetoric. Israel does_not need the help of the U.S. They themselves have said it. Israel has a very very good military, perhaps even better than ours in some ways. They could take Iran out in 24 hours if they want. Israel is a horrible card for the govt to play in terms of justification for bombing the crap out of Iran. The govt clearly wants Iran out of the picture, but they are telling you and I the real reason why.

ETA: Oh, and one more question. Do you think bombing the crap out of Iran would stop "terrorism" or make it worse?

reply to post by Wookiep


I am not advocating the bombings or war we've seen just this year...Does Iran have a nuke, who knows, may be. Will they use it on us, prolly not. Here is an awesome link to checkout..make sure you use the interactive map located near the bottom.

Global Zero

The concept of terrorism didn't even really begin until 9/11. Ron Paul is right. We created terrorism. Just think, if we didn't go around the world meddling in other nation's affairs, none of this would have ever happened.

We ARMED Saddam. At the time it helped us against the soviets, somewhat. But it really backfired on us. We also ARMED Osama. Afghanistan was being contested by the Soviets and the West. The afghans/muhajadeen didn't want America and the Soviets trying to control their country. The Americans saw this as an opportunity. So we armed Osama and his muhajadeen fighters for they could drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan. What happened? When the Soviets were finally driven out, that only left one other invading force - America. So of course Osama was going to turn on us.

Look at Libya. We put Gaddafi in power. When he didn't want to play ball like a good little puppet anymore, we had to go and spend billions and kill thousands to remove him from power.

Our foreign policy is to blame for all of this. If we just stayed home and minded our business, and let the rest of the world do whatever they want to each other, none of these messes would have ever happened.

reply to post by Daedal


Ok, (cool map by the way) I guess I'm just confused then. The topic is if we think Paul would contain "terrorism" with diplomacy or not. I think his non-interventionist stance on the above position on Iran, answers it pretty well.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Daedal

 

Ok, (cool map by the way) I guess I'm just confused then. The topic is if we think Paul would contain "terrorism" with diplomacy or not. I think his non-interventionist stance on the above position on Iran, answers it pretty well.

edit on 15-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Just a little info..this is the ultimate weapon for terrorists.

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?

Then we declare war,Constitutionally.

With the amount of money we spend on the military,we will have no problems taking out any enemy's.

Think of those who were Americas allies,and are now not.
Think of those countries,or men that America has funded,and they abused their people, when in power.


It has to stop one day. We cant afford it,monetarily,or morally.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Daedal

 

Ok, (cool map by the way) I guess I'm just confused then. The topic is if we think Paul would contain "terrorism" with diplomacy or not. I think his non-interventionist stance on the above position on Iran, answers it pretty well.

edit on 15-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

I agree, non- intervention is good policy sometimes. Should we go after Iran, prolly not but looks like they did.

Originally posted by Daedal

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by Daedal

 

Ok, (cool map by the way) I guess I'm just confused then. The topic is if we think Paul would contain "terrorism" with diplomacy or not. I think his non-interventionist stance on the above position on Iran, answers it pretty well.

edit on 15-12-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

I agree, non- intervention is good policy sometimes. Should we go after Iran, prolly not but looks like they did.

America NEVER went to war with China or Russia,when these country's caught "spy's" in their respective country's.

Its spying,not War.

reply to post by jeichelberg


Op asked two questions...

present candidates, RP included, do anything...


and

past the time a peaceful approach would work

No to both....

reply to post by Daedal

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?

We won't know until we try.

Obviously, bombing and invading countries has not worked, right? I mean there seems to be no drop in threats according to the rhetoric from our leaders, not that we'd know if the threats are even real or not, we just have to take their word for it.

So, if America turned non-interventionist, and used diplomacy and respect for all other countries, is it possible that a world change could occur? Is it possible, a mentality of positivity and collaboration amongst all countries could occur?

Who knows? We aren't trying this.

Do you think with time, and an non-interventionist, but diplomatic attitude, countries might come to like and respect us genuinely and not just in fear?

I wonder.