Re: Why Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War

Anyone who refuses to see that Islam is our enemy is wrong about
Islam.
---
opinion noted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvxb0zXk2i0

On Feb 29, 6:34 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone who refuses to see that Islam is our enemy is wrong about Islam.  It
> is a totalitarian system controlled by the Koran and Sharia.  Islam
> requires the destruction of everything and everybody that is not Islamic.
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why Ron Paul Is Wrong about Islam, Foreign Policy, and War
>
> > by 1389 on February 27, 2012
>
> > in 1389 (blog admin)<http://1389blog.com/category/1389-blog/authors/1389/>,
> > 2012 US Elections<http://1389blog.com/category/politics/2012-us-elections/>,
> > Global Conflict <http://1389blog.com/category/military/global-conflict/>,
> > history <http://1389blog.com/category/history/>, history of jihad<http://1389blog.com/category/history/history-of-jihad/>,
> > Islam <http://1389blog.com/category/islam/>, military<http://1389blog.com/category/military/>,
> > Ron Paul <http://1389blog.com/category/politics/ron-paul/>, September 11,
> > 2001 <http://1389blog.com/category/history/9-11/>
>
> > Sultan Knish explains:
> > Between Responsible and Irresponsible Isolationism<http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/12/between-responsible-and-irres...>
>
> > There is one fundamental element that is absolutely necessary for an
> > isolationist foreign policy. Isolation. Isolationism without physical
> > isolation is as much good as belligerence without an army to back it up.
>
> > American isolationism might have been feasible during WW1 when its
> > neighbors were either friendly or no threat, there was no danger from the
> > Pacific and a fleet crossing the Atlantic seemed unlikely. Though it wasn't
> > so unlikely even then.
>
> > As far back as 1897 and long before any American involvement in Europe,
> > Operational Plan Three called for shelling New York and seizing parts of
> > Virginia, as a staging base for attacks on Washington and Baltimore. Plans
> > were drawn up in Germany for the occupation of Boston and Philadelphia.
>
> > Vice-Admiral August Thomsen wrote, "At the moment every thinking German
> > officer is occupied with the consequences of a belligerent conflict between
> > Germany and the United States of America."
>
> > No American politician was thinking the same thing. America had not
> > intervened in any European wars and had no interest in Germany. But that
> > didn't matter. The Kasier wanted to seize parts of the hemisphere and that
> > meant breaking the dominant power in the region. America's weak fleet made
> > it seem like an easy target.
>
> > That is the most important part of the equation that isolationists fail to
> > include in their calculations. Regardless of our foreign policy, we are
> > still a target. Whatever our calculations are, potential enemies may have
> > calculations entirely different from our own. They don't just react to what
> > we do, they have their own plans and agendas. Passivity isn't a defense for
> > the ostrich or for a nation.
>
> > In 1900 while America slept, German diplomats were scouting Cape Cod and
> > Provincetown as support bases for an attack on Boston. And the Germans
> > weren't alone. In the early 20th century there were British plans for an
> > assault on New England. But Germany's failure to formulate an alliance with
> > other European powers against the United States led to the abandonment of
> > Operational Plan Three.
>
> > When Charles Lindbergh ridiculed the idea of a foreign attack on America,
> > such an attack was less than a year away, but variations of it had been
> > planned by European powers for a good deal longer than that. Terrorist
> > attacks by foreign agents were a now forgotten reality during WW1,
> > including the Black Tom explosion which severely damaged the Statue of
> > Liberty, the Vanceboro bridge bombing, and in an early form of biological
> > warfare a laboratory in Chevy Chase was working on anthrax and glanders
> > cultures to be used on horses.
>
> > With the jet plane and the intercontinental ballistic missile,
> > isolationism became completely unworkable without strong deterrence. Even
> > if the United States had chosen to abandon Europe, it would still have
> > needed massive nuclear missile stockpiles, a sizable fleet and military,
> > and a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction just to pursue a policy of
> > isolationism. And had the USSR managed to make even deeper inroads in South
> > America, the United States would have been forced to either push it out or
> > increase the size of its forces to compensate for the loss of a buffer zone
> > against preemptive attacks.
>
> > It's not impossible to have an isolationist foreign policy today, to cut
> > any alliances with the rest of the world. But there's a fundamental
> > difference between a responsible and an irresponsible isolationist policy.
> > A responsible isolationist policy recognizes that we have enemies who will
> > act regardless of what we do and prepares against the possibility of war
> > without actively seeking it out.
>
> > An irresponsible isolationist foreign policy however acts as if we have no
> > enemies and that any talk that we have enemies is a conspiracy to bring us
> > into a war. It accepts every bit of enemy propaganda as gospel and assumes
> > that if we just "stop bothering them", they'll "stop bothering us". It
> > assumes that the enemy is entirely motivated by our actions, that any
> > conflict we are in is the result of our foreign policy and that
> > isolationism will avert any such conflicts.
>
> > This is the version of isolationism that you hear in the Republican
> > debates from Ron Paul. It's the version that Americans heard back in the
> > 1930′s from Lindbergh. Rather than recognizing that a military buildup is
> > an important deterrent to war, it attacks military buildups as provocative.
> > It assumes that the only possible reason why we might be attacked are
> > foreign entanglements and if we just tuck our heads in then there will be
> > no conflict.
>
> > The absurdity of this approach when it comes to the current clash of
> > civilizations with Islam is obvious enough. This isn't a conflict that
> > dates back from 1991 or 1948 or even the First Barbary War in 1805. It's a
> > war that predates the United States and modern day Europe. It is a conflict
> > that goes back over a thousand years to the decline and fall of the eastern
> > remains of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam as a militant unification
> > ideology to fill that void.
>
> > American foreign policy can't turn back the clock on that history. It can
> > affect events in the present day, but it can't undo the roots of a conflict
> > that it has inherited. American foreign policy had a good deal to do with
> > the rise of Islamic states built on petrodollars, but isolationism is
> > certainly not going to make them go away. Certainly not Ron Paul's brand of
> > isolationism which pretends that there is nothing wrong with Islam that
> > can't be fixed with an American isolationist foreign policy.
>
> > During the last debate, Ron Paul asked why they're bombing us and not
> > Sweden or Switzerland. The answer is very simple. You only bomb people who
> > resist. Stockholm is 20 percent Muslim. Muslim terrorists operate out of
> > Sweden, including a top Al-Qaeda leader, but they don't need to attack a
> > territory that they're already on the way to ruling through natural
> > demographics.
>
> > 44 percent of Europe's population is over 45. Under 34 percent is under
> > 30. Meanwhile half of European Muslims are under 30. The math isn't very
> > hard to do. The only countries that need to be targeted by Muslim
> > terrorists are those which have a high enough birth rate that demographics
> > alone won't do the trick.
>
> > The First World country with the highest birth rate is Israel. It's also
> > the country most targeted by Muslim terrorists. The First World country
> > with the second highest birth rate is the United States. It is the country
> > second most targeted by terrorists. The next major countries on the list
> > are France and the UK. There's a term for this sort of thing. It's
> > demographic suppression and political intimidation.
>
> > Back in the 19th century the Kasier hoped that shelling Manhattan and
> > seizing a few cities would bring the United States to the negotiating
> > table. Japan thought that bombing Pearl Harbor would accomplish the same
> > thing. But while Tojo was wrong, the House of Saud was correct. September
> > 11 brought the United States to the negotiating table with Islam. Muslims
> > have been granted special privileges and their immigration rate has
> > increased. That's one path to an eventual demographic domination.
>
> > Islamic attacks against the United States may emerge from various
> > micro-events, but the macro-event from which they originate is the shared
> > history of the Western world and the ongoing conflict between the Muslim
> > world and the West. Some isolationists may act as if the United States can
> > break with European history through assertion alone. It cannot. Like it or
> > not it shares a common history and a common culture. America derives from
> > Europe, and whether Americans recognize it or not, the rest of the world
> > does. To Islam, America is not an island, it is another outpost of an enemy
> > civilization that must be subdued so that the way of Mohammed will triumph
> > around the world.
>
> > Ron Paul type isolationists fail to distinguish between the proximate
> > causes of war and the ultimate causes of war. A proximate cause of war may
> > be a ship that has wandered into the wrong area which may have been caused
> > by a trade dispute which may have been caused by debts which may have been
> > caused by growing militarism and greed for land. But none of those are
> > truly the ultimate cause of war. The ultimate cause of war is the
> > incompatibility of two systems and two civilizations within the same space.
>
> > Technological development means that the old boundaries are all but gone.
> > Immigration means that the enemy population is already here. The rise of
> > Islam means that war is inevitable, all that remains are the details, which
> > battle, on
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.