New Ron Paul article

Cyclonepride · 10-31-2007, 02:16 PM

This guy has me alternating between issues where I fanatically support what he is saying to issues where he says something, and I just can't agree. Here he's not just talking pull troops out of Iraq, it's Korea and everywhere else. It's ending our alliance with Israel. Those ideas are pretty scary, but at the same time interesting to ponder. Such drastic measures would have a profound effect on world affairs, and I'm pretty sure not all of them would be good.

Ron Paul's Iowa dreams becoming more real - Ron Paul - MSNBC.com

alaskaguy · 10-31-2007, 02:53 PM

Interestingly polling results indicate that there is support for the Ron Paul candidacy by military personnel.

Similarly the results of the military.com question as to when when US troops should withdraw from Iraq proved a surprise: "Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated... said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008."

Link: Why the US Military Loves Ron Paul

brianhos · 10-31-2007, 08:44 PM

Ending our alliance with Israel? That would allow the arabs to commit genocide. Seriously, as soon as we stop protecting them, the jews are gone. The attack would start at sun up the next morning.

alaskaguy · 10-31-2007, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

Ending our alliance with Israel? That would allow the arabs to commit genocide. Seriously, as soon as we stop protecting them, the jews are gone. The attack would start at sun up the next morning.

I find myself in agreement with Ron Paul on this particular issue. Our nations security would be better served if we were "neutral" in the Middle East. I don't view Israeli security as a U.S. national security problem. In addition, I don't believe that we should be supporting the authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes.

Israel would not be gone as soon as we stop protecting them. They have a lot of nukes and their armed forces are second to none in the Middle East. In addition, a coodinated attack from Middle Eastern countries would be an unlikely proposition. I believe that Arabs understand that it would be suicide to engage Israel in a major confrontation.

Cyclonepride · 10-31-2007, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

I find myself in agreement with Ron Paul on this particular issue. Our nations security would be better served if we were "neutral" in the Middle East. I don't view Israeli security as a U.S. national security problem. In addition, I don't believe that we should be supporting the authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes.

Israel would not be gone as soon as we stop protecting them. They have a lot of nukes and their armed forces are second to none in the Middle East. In addition, a coodinated attack from Middle Eastern countries would be an unlikely proposition. I believe that Arabs understand that it would be suicide to engage Israel in a major confrontation.

If ending our alliance means stopping arms sales and support for them, then eventually it will mean the end of Israel. The only reason the Arab states leave them alone is they know that even if they can defeat Israel on it's own, which is a longshot, they would have our full support.

alaskaguy · 11-01-2007, 02:38 AM

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is firepit between the Arabs and Israel. Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you greatly reduce the regional tensions. In addition, you reduce the Islamic terrorist problem since they constantly draw on the plight of the Palestinians to drum up support.

Somebody needs to broker a peace agreement between the Israel and the Palestinians. I can not see that there is a likilihood that the U.S. can successfully broker a peace agreement since we are too close to Israel. All the aid the U.S. provides Israel fosters the perception that the U.S. favors Israel in peace negotiations. This perception in turn creates strong anti-American sentiment throughout Arab world.

Where the U.S. really gets burned is that terrorist attacks on the U.S. are largely due to our Israeli favoritism. If we didn't favor Israel I don't think that we would be the target that we are.

I understand that some people believe that we must support Israel since they are a liberal democracy. However, the price tag is far too high. We don't get enough in return for our support. And I just don't understand that Israeli security problems threaten U.S. security.

jdoggivjc · 11-01-2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is firepit between the Arabs and Israel. Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you greatly reduce the regional tensions. In addition, you reduce the Islamic terrorist problem since they constantly draw on the plight of the Palestinians to drum up support.

Somebody needs to broker a peace agreement between the Israel and the Palestinians. I can not see that there is a likilihood that the U.S. can successfully broker a peace agreement since we are too close to Israel. All the aid the U.S. provides Israel fosters the perception that the U.S. favors Israel in peace negotiations. This perception in turn creates strong anti-American sentiment throughout Arab world.

Where the U.S. really gets burned is that terrorist attacks on the U.S. are largely due to our Israeli favoritism. If we didn't favor Israel I don't think that we would be the target that we are.

I understand that some people believe that we must support Israel since they are a liberal democracy. However, the price tag is far too high. We don't get enough in return for our support. And I just don't understand that Israeli security problems threaten U.S. security.

I really don't think I agree with a whole lot of what is said in this. First, I think you underestimate just how much Arabs think of the Palestinians. I've talked with a couple of them over the years and the Palestinians are basically the "red-headed stepchildren" of the Arab world, one step above Israel. The only reason why the Palestinians are even regarded at all is because their blood enemy is Israel (and they were the ones displaced by the Israel state in 1948). If the Palestinians were that highly thought of, why wasn't another nation, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Syria, willing to carve a small portion out of their own country for Palestine to start their own (and that's not an original question by me - that was brought up by a Palestinian I talked with)?

Second, if you think any peace accord between Israel and Palestine will actually last, you might want to rethink that. No matter how much Israel treaties with Palestine, no matter how much of Gaza and/or Jerusalem Israel gives up to Palestine, it will never be enough for Palestinians until Israel is completely out of what they consider "all" of their land. You would think relations would have gotten better between Israel and Palestine after Israel's latest evacuation out of Gaza. Has it?

Third, this conflict goes back to Biblical times, all the way back to Abraham, the father of Ishmael (patriarch of the Arabs) and Isaac (patriarch of Israel). Go ahead and read Genesis through about 2 Chronicles (skipping Leviticus) and you'll get a pretty good summary of why there will never be peace in the Middle East - because there's NEVER been peace in the Middle East. So why don't more nations attack Israel now? Because most nations, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, learned their lesson that it just doesn't pay to mess with them (especially Egypt, as they lost the majority of the Sinai Peninsula to Israel as a result of failed attacks on Israel, but gained it back through a number of treaties).

Finally, I even if a lasting treaty between Israel and Palestine were created, that still wouldn't solve Israel's problems as they've attacked/been attacked by Hezbollah (Lebanon) and Syria over the last 5 years. What do these have in common? Direct ties with Iran - and we all know from the last several months that Iran's basically made it public that one of their missions in life is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. And that threat becomes more serious as it seems that Iran and Russia seem to align themselves together more and more each passing day (no matter how suspect Russia's technology is right now). None of this will change whether a treaty is signed with Palestine or not.

Actually, I think not supporting Israel is an interesting idea as it would almost be equivalent to taking the leash off a pit bull IMO. I'd say a good reason why Israel hasn't been more proactively militarily is due to the fact that the majority of the time we tell Israel to "simmer down." What might Israel do if they weren't "handcuffed" in that fashion? And just because we're pulling military out of everywhere in the world doesn't mean we'd be ending relations with nations - that'd just be stupid. Just because we wouldn't be passing along military equipment to Israel anymore doesn't mean that Israel's defense system is going to die - first off they have a pretty good defense industry in their own right, and just because we're pulling out doesn't mean foreign military sales of equipment is going to end - if we pulled that stunt we'd just ruin our own economy.

Finally, I think that all the terrorist attacks, including 9/11 go way deeper beyond America's support of Israel. It's more of a hatred of our way of life and their insistence of spreading Islam to all parts of the world using "the sword" if necessary. Regardless of our position on Israel, we'll be targets of Al Qaeda as long as they're relevant. The reason is because they hate the one thing that is the fabric of our existence - our freedom. We are free to do pretty much whatever we want in our lives, we're free to worship the God we choose in the way we choose, our women have the same rights as our men, and financially, we're absolutely blessed as a nation. Generally, Britain, France, and Spain are the same way, and they were attacked as well (partially because they share most of the same beliefs as us but also because they're our friends).

alaskaguy · 11-01-2007, 11:37 AM

My opinions are heavily influenced by my brother who is a diplomat for the U.S. State Department. He has spent much of his adult life in the Middle East. For the last ten years he has served in the Baku and Cairo embassies.

I share his opinion that it is wrong to assume that hatred against our way of life is the primary reason for terrorism against the U.S. In fact contrary to how the media portrays the Middle East, he claims that there is widespread admiration for the U.S. (perhaps not so much of our government but for what we have accomplished domestically). However, he has observed that the Iraq war significantly damaged the Middle Eastern view of the U.S.

The conclusion that I draw from his observations is that the U.S. needs to stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and concentrate on the issues that impact our own national security. The concept that there is linkage between an interventionist foreign policy and terrorism against the U.S. appears not only logical but is being borne out by increased terrorism directed at the U.S. by Islamic terrrorists.

The Israeli-Palestinian problem does create strong anti-American sentiment with the Muslim world. A good example, is that whenever bin Laden or al Qaeda develops video tapes they always mention the plight of the Palenstinians to stir up support.

The U.S. also runs the risk of making Israel's war against their terrorists part of our problem when we support Israel. If Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad feel that they are being lumped together with Al-Qaeda they will be increasingly directing their attacks at the U.S.

alaskaguy · 11-05-2007, 09:56 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours.

Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

Link:
The Associated Press: Paul Raises More Than $3.5 Million

jumbopackage · 11-07-2007, 03:40 PM

I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul. I think he's the best "Republican" candidate out there, but that's really not saying much.

I think he'd stir some things up, at least. The question is, do those things need to be stirred up?

Cyclonepride · 11-07-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul. I think he's the best "Republican" candidate out there, but that's really not saying much.

I think he'd stir some things up, at least. The question is, do those things need to be stirred up?

Probably. Unfortunately, a sweeping reform goes nowhere without Congress.