ABC debate: Foreign Policy and Iraq War (split)

[Pangloss]

The debate tonight on ABC was *amazing*. Best debate format yet.

[ecoli]

The debate tonight on ABC was *amazing*. Best debate format yet.

 

I missed it, but I'm sure it was better than the Fox debate. I'll watch it on youtube later tonight or tommorow, maybe.

 

edit: I saw a clip of Paul talking with Guiliani and Romney about foreign policy. I can't believe I saw Guiliani laughing at the notion that our foreign policy instigated the attacks. I never had much respect for the man, but you have to be some kind of moron not to see Paul's right about this... Even our own CIA and 9/11 commission report has agreed with Paul.

 

I also didn't like the way they let Romney talk over Paul's attempt at a rebuttal. Obviously Paul knows that there many causes, but how can you have access to intelligence, like these men supposedly do, and reject the conclusion that intervention overseas instigates hatred towards us. I mean, this just approaches the realm of common sense. Has the republican party really descended into this 'America can do no wrong overseas' attitude? No wonder why the party base is shrinking and they're losing power across the nation.

 

It's pretty amazing how Paul is alone in this one... there aren't too many republican politicians saying bad things about our foreign policy.

[ParanoiA]

It's pretty amazing how Paul is alone in this one... there aren't too many republican politicians saying bad things about our foreign policy.

 

I've been reading Founding Brothers and I read this bit by Ellis talking about the end of the Federalist Party...yet when I review the status quo it sure doesn't seem like it. The label got devoured but the mentallity apparently has lived on and merged into the psyche of what I thought was essentially the anti-Federalists. (Of course, I'm basing that on the supposed conservative theme of smaller federal government)

 

Ron Paul, to me, is a kind of mile marker of how far we've drifted. Depending on your perspective, that's good or bad, but it's refreshing to have someone represent that view and get this kind of exposure, regardless. And, this is the first candidate I've ever given money to. Felt kinda dirty, but wtf...

[Pangloss]

edit: I saw a clip of Paul talking with Guiliani and Romney about foreign policy. I can't believe I saw Guiliani laughing at the notion that our foreign policy instigated the attacks. I never had much respect for the man, but you have to be some kind of moron not to see Paul's right about this... Even our own CIA and 9/11 commission report has agreed with Paul.

 

You really need to see the whole thing; it won't change your opinion (because they really did laugh at Paul and disrespect him), but it will provide a better context for the point of view that Giuliani and the others were putting forth.

 

Paul had a valid point, but I felt he pushed it too far. He's correct in that we need to be more aware of the impact of our foreign policy decisions, but he's wrong to say that we caused 9/11. That's NOT what the 9/11 Commission Report says (I've read it cover to cover). The others had a valid point in criticizing Paul, though I felt they were being unnecessarily disrespectful.

 

I've been reading Founding Brothers and I read this bit by Ellis talking about the end of the Federalist Party...yet when I review the status quo it sure doesn't seem like it. The label got devoured but the mentallity apparently has lived on and merged into the psyche of what I thought was essentially the anti-Federalists. (Of course, I'm basing that on the supposed conservative theme of smaller federal government)

 

That's such an awesome book.

 

An interesting follow-up on Ellis would be Burns' "Infamous Scribblers", btw. He quotes Ellis a lot, and builds on some of what he's saying, although Burns' focus is a different subject.

[ecoli]

You really need to see the whole thing; it won't change your opinion (because they really did laugh at Paul and disrespect him), but it will provide a better context for the point of view that Giuliani and the others were putting forth.

 

Paul had a valid point, but I felt he pushed it too far. He's correct in that we need to be more aware of the impact of our foreign policy decisions, but he's wrong to say that we caused 9/11. That's NOT what the 9/11 Commission Report says (I've read it cover to cover). The others had a valid point in criticizing Paul, though I felt they were being unnecessarily disrespectful.

Of course, Paul isn't ignoring the many other factors... he wasn't really given enough time to explain that fully.

 

I agree that we can debate about the pros and cons of maintaining our militaristic role overseas, but that doesn't mean you can, morally, ignore the cons, if you're for it.

 

I, admittedly, haven't read the 9/11 commission report, but I believe what it says is that our foreign policy contributed to the attacks. Bin Laden, for example, stating that our bases in Saudi Arabia was a motivator.

Now, of course, Paul (and I) understand that fanatical Islam is something we didn't create, but it is something we contribute to, out of the reaction to our military presence.

 

After laughing and completely rejecting this, truly displaying is refusal to think critically here, Guiliani then went on to say that events that had nothing to do with us, like the Bhutto assassination, proved that we have nothing to do with events in the Middle east. Ron actually disagrees with this:

But even if we didn't have anything to do with it, how does prove we had absolutely no input into 9/11?

 

There is, perhaps, an intelligent argument against Ron Paul, I think, but none of the other candidates are making it.

[iNow]

There is, perhaps, an intelligent argument against Ron Paul, I think, but none of the other candidates are making it.

 

No... they are not. Laughing openly like that attacks the person making the point, and tries to show their inferiority. It speaks nothing against the point that person is making, but that will likely go unoticed by the vast majority of viewers and voters.

[Pangloss]

Of course, Paul isn't ignoring the many other factors... he wasn't really given enough time to explain that fully.

 

I fully agree.

 

 

I, admittedly, haven't read the 9/11 commission report, but I believe what it says is that our foreign policy contributed to the attacks. Bin Laden, for example, stating that our bases in Saudi Arabia was a motivator.

 

I really don't recall anything like that in the report. But again, this is the kind of statement that gets Ron Paul in trouble as well -- what excuses al qaeda chose for attacking us aren't relevent. What matters is whether we were correct and justified in taking those foreign policy steps. I don't recall any international outcry over our bases in Saudi Arabia, for example, and we weren't even TOUCHING the Taliban. This is why these "reasons" never really wash, and why the Republican candidate were correct to rebuke Paul on this issue.

 

But again, he has a valid point in saying that we need to fully understand the situation and any contribution our actions and errors may have had.

 

 

Now, of course, Paul (and I) understand that fanatical Islam is something we didn't create, but it is something we contribute to, out of the reaction to our military presence.

 

We may contribute to its enlargement, yes, but again if we contribute to its enlargement through correct actions then we need to be extremely cautious about suddenly deciding those actions were incorrect just because they enlarged fanatical Islam.

 

Put another way, overreacting to "our contributions" may in fact be another form of contribution. Five years from now we may be saying the exact same thing about our contributions, but the contributions in question will be the actions of doing what Al Qaeda wanted us to do and thereby encouraging them to do more (and pick new complaints).

[bascule]

...this is the kind of statement that gets Ron Paul in trouble as well -- what excuses al qaeda chose for attacking us aren't relevent. What matters is whether we were correct and justified in taking those foreign policy steps.

 

I think his point is that if our foreign policy weren't so interventionist, with a stellar record of supreme failures that come back to haunt us time and time again (you know, things like the Iran-Contra Affair, a result of our attempts to depose Iran's democratically elected leader and reinstituting the Shah), then they wouldn't hate us so much!

[ecoli]

We may contribute to its enlargement, yes, but again if we contribute to its enlargement through correct actions then we need to be extremely cautious about suddenly deciding those actions were incorrect just because they enlarged fanatical Islam.

This I don't get this... isn't our stated purpose in Iraq to decrease the size and power of Islamic fundamentalist groups? How can military action be justified then, when the numbers indicates our presence is encouraging groups like Al qaeda to grow.

 

I'll admit, things have been getting better since the surge, but Al Queda didn't even have a foothold in Iraq until we got there. So, our recent surge has only been able to take care of a problem we created in the first place.

 

Put another way, overreacting to "our contributions" may in fact be another form of contribution. Five years from now we may be saying the exact same thing about our contributions, but the contributions in question will be the actions of doing what Al Qaeda wanted us to do and thereby encouraging them to do more (and pick new complaints).

 

That's well and good... but what do they really want us to do?

 

Surely we can't justify maintaining a war, with the excuse that, Al Qaeda wants us to leave, so leaving must be the wrong thing to do!

[Pangloss]

(you know, things like the Iran-Contra Affair, a result of our attempts to depose Iran's democratically elected leader and reinstituting the Shah)

 

I don't follow that reasoning. The Shah died before Reagan even came to office. Maybe I'm just not following you.

 

I think his point is that if our foreign policy weren't so interventionist' date=' with a stellar record of supreme failures that come back to haunt us time and time again, then they wouldn't hate us so much![/quote']

 

And we shouldn't be interventionist, but the reason we shouldn't be interventionist should have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, it should be based on whether or not it's a good idea to be interventionist.

 

Would you remove all support for Israel? Not just some of it, I mean every single scrap of support of any kind, under Al Qaeda's definition. We would have to disallow even immigration from that country. All treaties banished, all trade ended, all travel eliminated. Americans would not even be able to send cash to loved ones in Jerusalem. We would not be able to respond to invasion or the use of weapons of mass destruction. Do you support that? Because if you don't, then you are making a foreign policy decision that is directly contributing to Al Qaeda's hatred for us.

 

Doesn't that get a little silly after a while? Don't we have to step ABOVE what Al Qaeda "hates us for"?

[bascule]

I don't follow that reasoning. The Shah died before Reagan even came to office. Maybe I'm just not following you.

 

Let's see, the Ayatollahs came to power as a direct result of what? The Iranian Revolution which followed mass resentment of the political leader the CIA installed...

 

And I guess you're really missing the point if you couldn't follow that. Try again:

 

Intervention in that reason has come back to bite us on the ass time and time again.

 

Why do you think they hate us? That seemed to be the pivotal question in the ABC debate. Giuliani trotted out the tired old they hate us for our freedom and they hate us because we're the greatest nation in the world lines.

 

I think our history of past intervention in the region has something more to do with that.

[Pangloss]

I'll admit, things have been getting better since the surge, but Al Queda didn't even have a foothold in Iraq until we got there. So, our recent surge has only been able to take care of a problem we created in the first place.

 

Well first of all, one of the most significant reasons for the success of the surge is the fact that Sunni militias have temporarily withdrawn their support for Al Qaeda and its ilk, taking a "wait and see" approach. Obviously that's not a permanent situation but it underscores the point I'm about to make.

 

You're still treating terrorism as a localized, out-of-thin-air phenomenon, like a forest fire or lice infestation. It takes TWO things to create a terrorist problem of that magnitude -- opportunity AND capability. We only provided ONE of those things. And if that's the case, is the real "reason" for Al Qaeda in Iraq's existence the fact that we are there, or the fact that Sunnis wanted to ensure that they wouldn't have to live under Shiite rule?

 

If you have 1000 insurgents in an area and you leap in and attack them and capture 500 of them, and the other 500 spread out to 10 other towns, do you celebrate the halving of the terrorist numbers, or decry the spread of terrorism to ten other towns? The question seems daft when put that way, but that's exactly what we do, over and over again.

 

Similarly, people say that we took out the only thing (Saddam) stopping Sunnis from leaping straight into the arms of Al Qaeda. Well when you put it that way then sure, it certainly looks like we're responsible for Al Qaeda in Iraq, but only because we are assuming that the Sunnis are too stupid or too pissed off to see any other possible course of action. But why should we let them off the hook? Isn't that a choice? Couldn't they have acted differently? Why is that OUR fault?

 

Let's see, the Ayatollahs came to power as a direct result of what? The Iranian Revolution which followed mass resentment of the political leader the CIA installed...

 

And I guess you're really missing the point if you couldn't follow that. Try again:

 

Intervention in that reason has come back to bite us on the ass time and time again.

 

Why do you think they hate us? That seemed to be the pivotal question in the ABC debate. Giuliani trotted out the tired old they hate us for our freedom and they hate us because we're the greatest nation in the world lines.

 

I think our history of past intervention in the region has something more to do with that.

 

And we shouldn't be interventionist, but the reason we shouldn't be interventionist should have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, it should be based on whether or not it's a good idea to be interventionist.

 

Would you remove all support for Israel? Not just some of it, I mean every single scrap of support of any kind, under Al Qaeda's definition. We would have to disallow even immigration from that country. All treaties banished, all trade ended, all travel eliminated. Americans would not even be able to send cash to loved ones in Jerusalem. We would not be able to respond to invasion or the use of weapons of mass destruction. Do you support that? Because if you don't, then you are making a foreign policy decision that is directly contributing to Al Qaeda's hatred for us.

 

Doesn't that get a little silly after a while? Don't we have to step ABOVE what Al Qaeda "hates us for"?