What position on foreign terrorism should a Democratic pres. candidate take for 2008?

[greyl]

Any budding speech writers in here want to take a stab at it?

[Twist_U_Up]

1. I would like to see them focus on Domestic Terrorism

You know, like the so called leaders of the free world, creating a foreign boogey man,initiating a huge terror incident,blaming it on that same boogie-man and then attacking any givin country for thier resources.
But thats just me.

[greyl]

4. I specified "foreign" for a reason. nt

[astralroamer]

2. The terrorism issue

Talking points:

1. "terrorist" is often a crude codeword for political opponents of the neocons

2. America needs to restore its good reputation in the world and reestablish friendly relations with other nations to reduce the threat of terrorism to Americans

3. neocon aggression in Iraq and the Middle East has greatly exacerbated the problem of terrorism

4. the best way to combat terrorism is through quiet police work, in close and friendly cooperation with other nations

5. the Global War on Terror is a Global Waste of Time

6. the Israeli/Palestinian conflict needs to be solved immediately

7. the threat of terrorism has been vastly overhyped

8. there are much greater problems and issues facing Americans than terrorism -- loss of US manufacturing base, outsourcing of jobs, alternative energy research, global warming, environmental catastrophe, health care, radical income inequality, poverty, education, economic challenges from China, India, Russia, Europe, etc.

9. in their zealotry to ignite a Clash of Civilizations, the neocons have taken our eye off the ball and are driving the U.S. over the cliff

10. the historical record reveals that *state* terrorism has always been much more dangerous and destructive than small radical groups: consider the Stalinist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, which produced a combined death toll exceeding 100 million

11. we need to take extraordinary measures to protect ourselves from the threat of nuclear and biological terrorism

12. we need to be especially vigilant about false flag terrorist ops conducted by state actors

[JackRiddler]

3. "The US government will stop sponsoring and perpetrating terrorism."

Consider this an endorsement of astralroamer's program, substituting "military industrial complex and extraconstitutional intelligence community" for "neocons."

[astralroamer]

5. A confederacy (conspiracy) of dunces

And an added note:

If 9/11 was an inside job -- I'm only 90% convinced so far -- then I strongly doubt that the entire MIC was involved. On the whole, they are too rational and pragmatic and cautious to get involved in such a lunatic operation. It would take an exceptional form of insanity to participate in such an op, one motivated by ideological fanaticism. The risk of discovery would simply be too great.

Iran-Contra, for instance, was not an MIC op -- it was a neocon op. Most MICers looked at this and remarked: what a collection of dunces!

As for 9/11: it may go down in future history books as the most badly bungled false flag op in world history, bar none.

Just my opinion, of course.

[CGowen]

6. Paul said it how it is

The catch-all phrase the ``war on terrorism'' in all honesty has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a war against a tactic. It is deliberately vague and nondefinable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstances. Don't forget, the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us, including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquests have driven most wars throughout all of history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own Revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades, our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military-industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

http://www.porkfist.com/2007/02/what_even_the_republicans_are.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x18917

[greyl]

7. You also agree with the following? :

Continuing to deny that the attacks against us are related to our overall policy of foreign meddling through many years and many administrations, makes a victory over our enemies nearly impossible. Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued. Guerilla warriors, who are willing to risk and sacrifice everything as part of a war they see as defensive, are a far cry, philosophically, from a band of renegades who out of unprovoked hate seek to destroy us and kill themselves in the process. How we fight back depends on understanding these differences.

Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no easy task.

The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than a hundred years.
-
Ron Paul

[CGowen]

8. I think the secret/shadow Gov. or however you will call it

has been around for over a hundred years

The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than a hundred years.

USS Maine 1898 (false flag) was around the beginning of all of this (Tonkin and others followed)



He is an isolationist, and that's why Neocons don't like him.

From the same 2004 speech you used
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html

There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 9/11. If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer and the opposite is more likely to occur.

that reminds me

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst011507.htm

It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11 – as we have in Iraq – further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.

Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan.

Sibel Edmonds anyone?

Understanding why both political parties agree on the principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial. Those reasons are multiple and varied. They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect “our” oil.

In my opinion he is saying that we are creating fake problems to offer our solutions.
If you go foreward without analyzing what happened you will fail.


I don't know if there is a working solution to this problem, but we have to try .

[Fainter]

9. Terrorism...Just Say No.

1) Stop trying to destabilize the regime in Iran. Sever ties with MEK.

2) Renounce preemptive warfare in all its forms.

3) Every so often, carpet bomb the Capitol so members might learn what real terror is.

4) Trust but verify Israeli compliance with our demands for a freeze on settlement activities. Each violation results automatically in a $100 million dollar reduction in aid.

5) Let Olmert know in no uncertain terms that we are not going to war against Iran and that Israel is on her own if she launches an attack.

6) Hold show trials.

7) Apologize to the soldiers and their families. Apologize for my vote authorizing the war.

8) Begin bringing the troops home en masse, starting in the Philippines because it's doable. Fewer troops, fewer targets for terrorism.

9) Overarching principle, non-intervention. Immediate salutary effects include:

a) huge reduction in military spending
b) warring parties fight to the finish, or come to terms
c) increased resources for domestic security
d) relaxation of international tension
e) over time, a resumption of moral confidence in global affairs

10) We are not going to break our teeth in Waziristan or any forsaken place far from home fighting a slogan.

11) Creation of a new frontline fighting force, the Congressional and Executive Branch Sons And Daughters Division. These folks, and these folks only are drafted, and first to fight. Sorry, no deferments. Stop/loss in effect for the duration.


At the risk of jumping the snark like a certain ghastly harpy, you most emphatically did not ask us to provide a winning foreign policy position on terrorism. I gave you one anyway. Where's yours?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. Umm Fainter...

Where the hell have you been? Only just starting to know you through your posts, but I'm pretty sure I've missed you. B-)

May I extend a very hearty welcome to the dungeon of DU? Someday we will capture the light of ground. :hi:

[astralroamer]

11. The terrorism discussion

greyl,

I must say that I am quite disappointed that you didn't take the trouble to engage in substantive discussion about the post I made in response to a question you posed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=148708&mesg_id=148720

You have no thoughts or comments at all on my points? What are your views on "terrorism," keeping in mind that neocons, who have been constructing this bogus "terrorism" propaganda system since at least the 1970s, regularly smear their political opponents in the American political mainstream as "terrorists" or "terrorist fellow travelers"? A "terrorist" is anyone who is an obstacle to neocon dreams of world domination -- that includes Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski and a large majority of Americans.

[greyl]

12. I'm disappointed in your replies in this thread. Even? nt

[astralroamer]

13. The terrorism issue

And this addresses the points in my post (msg #2) how? Why begin a topic on terrorism if you are not willing to engage with those who respond to your question?

When I begin a topic, I feel an obligation to respond to all the strongest points of those who take the trouble to respond.

[greyl]

14. I don't think your replies are a direct response. nt

[astralroamer]

15. The terrorism issue

How was my reply not a direct response? All the points I raised in my post were aimed directly at the issue you raised.

Perhaps my points are too strong to rebut. I'm begining to catch on that some members of this forum are more interested in substantive discussion than others.

Why don't you answer your own question? Surely there were points on this issue that you intended to make -- otherwise why start the topic?

[greyl]

16. Why assume I disagree with your points?

I have to tell you, I'm not particularly motivated to engage someone who wants to give a litmus test to people at DU then ignores the test results.