"Imagine"

[galtgulch]

This is posted on the www.campaignforliberty.com website:

>>>"Dr. Paul's Texas Straight Talk

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted."<<<

http://www.campaignforliberty.com 10Mar 6PM 106472, 11PM 106534; 11Mar 5AM 106578

gulch

Edited March 11, 2009 by galtgulch

[Alfonso Jones]

This is posted on the www.campaignforliberty.com website:

>>>"Dr. Paul's Texas Straight Talk

/quote]

This amazing piece of context-dropping is a good example of why the "Campaign for Liberty" numbers move so slowly. (And recall that they can't go down since this campaign is a sort of "Hotel California" - you can check out but you can never leave. They count people when they sign up, but there appears to be no way to have oneself "deducted from the count.)

I guess it doesn't matter to Ron Paul:

1) The reasons why the troops are in Afghanistan

2) Whether one can effective protect the citizens of the USA

The image of "Russian base on the USA" would be a bit more of an honest comparison if the analogy were that the base was located at the request of and with the ongoing support of the government of the USA.

Is Ron Paul unable to see the moral distinction between US soldiers and Al Qaeda?

I happen to think that we have TOO MANY soldiers overseas. But the notion that we do not have a legitimate right to station soldiers overseas when they are stationed in a country such as Afghanistan, etc and by being there they can help protect US citizens. Paul seems to think that we do not have the right to defend ourselves in such a fashion.

Bill P

[DavidMcK]

Speaking of context dropping, notice that you used Afghanistan as your example and added 'etc.' to include Iraq, and everywhere else the U.S. is stationed. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored the Al-Qaeda and we were attacked-the war in Afghanistan is justified out of self-defense. Ron Paul and galtgulch specifically stated Iraq.....please stop context dropping when discussing foreign policy.

[Alfonso Jones]

Speaking of context dropping, notice that you used Afghanistan as your example and added 'etc.' to include Iraq, and everywhere else the U.S. is stationed. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored the Al-Qaeda and we were attacked-the war in Afghanistan is justified out of self-defense. Ron Paul and galtgulch specifically stated Iraq.....please stop context dropping when discussing foreign policy.

What in the material which was quoted by Gulch leads you to believe that Ron Paul intends to apply his stricture against foreign bases ONLY to Iraq? What about the content restricts it to Iraq?

I, by the way, think the war in Iraq was a big mistake and don't defend our choice to involve ourselves there. It was not in the USA's interest to do so. Afghanistan - I believe that to be an entirely different matter.

I didn't know that "etc" was necessarily a reference to every possibly instance, whether plausibly related or not.

(Added definition below by edit):

From www.dictionary.com:

Definitions of etcetera:

1. a number of other things or persons unspecified.

2. etceteras, extras or sundries.

Bill P

Edited March 11, 2009 by Bill P

[galtgulch]

Speaking of context dropping, notice that you used Afghanistan as your example and added 'etc.' to include Iraq, and everywhere else the U.S. is stationed. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored the Al-Qaeda and we were attacked-the war in Afghanistan is justified out of self-defense. Ron Paul and galtgulch specifically stated Iraq.....please stop context dropping when discussing foreign policy.

What in the material which was quoted by Gulch leads you to believe that Ron Paul intends to apply his stricture against foreign bases ONLY to Iraq? What about the content restricts it to Iraq?

I, by the way, think the war in Iraq was a big mistake and don't defend our choice to involve ourselves there. It was not in the USA's interest to do so. Afghanistan - I believe that to be an entirely different matter.

I didn't know that "etc" was necessarily a reference to every possibly instance, whether plausibly related or not.

Bill P

Bill P.,

The initiator of the problem in Iran began when the CIA installed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah after removing an elected person. Now the US has over 800 military bases in over 120 countries around the world at a cost of about one trillion dollars, not counting the two wars, as undeclared by the Congress as they are. 9/11 would not have happened if the U. S. had not intervened in the Middle East in the first place.

Oil. Just wanted to mention that to complete the picture as to why the U.S. didn't invade Saudi Arabia.

Someone explain why Bill Clinton did not authorize the capture of Osama bin Laden when he was identified in the Sudan.

There are principles involved here but it is hard to discover them in the muddle of the U.S. foreign policy.

As far as the Campaign For Liberty is concerned I seriously doubt that anyone who took the trouble to join has chosen to leave. Does anyone as an individual have the right to withdraw from the U.S.? How about a town or a city? How about a state?

www.campaignforliberty.com 10Mar 11PM 106534; 11Mar 5AM 106578

If this country were as free as it is supposed to be no one would want to leave it. I see it as the last barricade in the fight for individual freedom in the world. Both the domestic and foreign policies of our country are far from what they ought to be. It is too soon to be able to tell just who will stand for office with the support and from the ranks of the Campaign For Liberty. It makes no sense to assume they will be Ron Paul clones aside from a strong commitment to the principles of the Constitution, sound money, abolition of the Fed, competing currencies one of which would be gold backed by implementing the bill advocated for the purpose by JFK, withdrawal of our troops from overseas responsibly, abolition of the IRS and abolition of the Fed Income Tax, repeal of regulation of industry, a free market, elimination of occupational licensing, repeal of Sarbanes Oxley and the Antitrust laws at every level, repeal of compulsory education laws, rent control laws, complete separation of the State and the Economy, Health, Education and Welfare.

Why don't you join and run for office yourself with the support of the C4L?

gulch

Edited March 11, 2009 by galtgulch

[Alfonso Jones]

Gulch (IT's still hard to call you "Gulch," but that's what you have requested earlier...):

I think I've indicated the specifics on my disagreements. I'm just too fond of liberty.

These would prevent running from office (as would the fact that I reside in Shanghai, China).

Bill P

Edited March 11, 2009 by Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

What is your source for American Military overseas?

Mossidingh's over throw occurred in the context of the cold war. There was a great deal of fear that the Soviet would take over Iran.

That said I think there were a many mistakes may with regard to the Shah.

Finally it is beyond how any person who calls himself an admirer of Ayn Rand can have any sympathy with the Tali ban. Afghanistan was a "slave pit" or worse. Bin Laden slept in a bed in Kabul before 9-11.

[galtgulch]

What is your source for American Military overseas?

Mossidingh's over throw occurred in the context of the cold war. There was a great deal of fear that the Soviet would take over Iran.

That said I think there were a many mistakes may with regard to the Shah.

Finally it is beyond how any person who calls himself an admirer of Ayn Rand can have any sympathy with the Tali ban. Afghanistan was a "slave pit" or worse. Bin Laden slept in a bed in Kabul before 9-11.

Et al,

I recall that a man died in the World Trade Center who was instrumental in uncovering the existence of the very men who launched the attack that caused the fall of the WTC. I don't recall whether he was FBI or CIA but it came to light that they were withholding information from each other or the like. Outrageous and egregious for a branch of government which is one of the three proper branches of govt according to Ayn Rand, i.e. military, police and courts.

Then you recall Bush sitting there stunned and dumbfounded when he was told of the attack while reading a story to school children.

It took three weeks before Bush spoke and attacked a building in Afganistan. That gave Taliban officials plenty of time to move out and to survive! I thought the counter attack should have been carried out in time to catch them unaware.

Why do you assume sympathy with the Taliban? I agree with Ayn Rand that anyone is morally justified in attempting to assassinate or overthrow any tyrannical dictator anywhere in the world. That doesn't necessarily make it good foreign policy. Remember the U.S. taught the Afghans how to use various weapons in their fight against the Russians. Then after the Russians left they became the Taliban and enslaved their own people and gave shelter to the likes of Osama bin Laden.

Don't insult me by suggesting that I sympathize with the Taliban or any other tyrants.

www.campaignforliberty.com 11Mar 5AM 106582

gulch

[Chris Grieb]

You didn't answer my first question.

Don't insult me by putting stupid and silly conspiracy theories as facts.

I'm glad to hear you have no sympathy with the Taliban. I wish Ron Paul would say the same thing.

[galtgulch]

You didn't answer my first question.

Don't insult me by putting stupid and silly conspiracy theories as facts.

I'm glad to hear you have no sympathy with the Taliban. I wish Ron Paul would say the same thing.

Chris,

To answer your question I simply googled "overseas military bases" and that generates quite a few choices.

I picked this one which at least has a picture of a cheerleader:

http://tinyurl.com/csador

It doesn't list them all but mentions some interesting figures, that there are secret bases for example, and the number of bases in certain places such as South Korea and Iraq.

www.campaignforliberty.com 14Mar 3AM 113531 or about 6,500 in approximately two days.

gulch