Thanks for the article. I think sometimes American's fail to look at things from the perspective of non-Americans. It is interesting to think about this, and there are many good things that come from Ron Paul.

Imagine if losers like this "congressman" got their way back in 1940... He's an idiot who resents freedom for the people of Iraq.  He would have kept the jews in concentration camps.

It's an interesting concept, but considering the only place I know where anything similar to what he discribed is happening is Iraq and last I checked they did not have the same freedoms we have today before the war and for this congressman to talk as if he somehow has lived under the iron fist rule of a dictator here in the US is for him to pretty much make statements based on feelings of "what if" as oppose to experience.

Iraqi's lived under 2 forms of lifestyles, you were either with Saddam or against him. One lived pretty decent, the others feared him. Today, they all live free.

In the US we all live free today and we can boot the current administration at our leasure. We can make movies making fun of our President, we can make comics about them. We can even talk crap about them (with the exception of threats) and nothing more that 15 minutes of fame from the Media will be the peek of it.

To compare who we are today and then falling under some kind of new rule to the people of Iraq how they are today compared to what ruled them before is like apples and oranges.

The reality is that I grew up in territory occupied by the US in a country which still has lots of US bases which do indeed operate outside local law. The crazy uncle knows nothing about that reality.

I loved it.

The Americans liberated Germany and the occupation ensured the growth of a new democratic Germany which protected all its citizens and foreigners regardless of ethnicity or religion. I played baseball in the McNair Barracks. Without the American soldiers and (sometimes) their families in the city I would probably not speak English now. My life would be totally different, if I were even alive without them.

This Web site reminds of the McNair Barracks in southern Berlin:

http://www.4th-of-july.us-army-berlin.org/

The presence of American troops was in no way offensive to normal citizens. Neo-Nazis protested and still do, as do some communists; but the large majority of Germans were and are happy about the liberation and occupation. Germany and the US are friends now and only 70 years ago they were mortal enemies.

Ron Paul knows nothing about the reality of this. He wasn't there. Ron Paul has an opinion and is looking for ways to rationalise that opinion. But I grew up in the situation he is talking about. And it isn't as he thinks it is.

And neither does he correctly describe the situation in Iraq. The people of Iraq want the occupation to end, that's true. But it's not because they are offended by the presence of American troops. Iraqis were more offended by the presence of Saddam (and I have the pictures to show why, I was there in one of Saddam's prisons and saw the torture chambers with my own eyes).

This is a souvenir of Iraq I bought in Arbil, which is occupied by the Koreans:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100043/IMG_0143&bgcolor=black

The locals sell these things to each other. They don't have tourists there.

He is right about one thing though. It was US meddling in the middle east that brought on the attacks. Had the US not stopped the Arabs from exterminating the Jews or had the US never spoken up when the Arabs murdered or enslaved any of the other non-Arab peoples of the region, America wouldn't have been attacked.

And if America simply gave in, the war would be over.

What the crazy uncle advocates is giving in to a bully. And he advocates it by talking about experiences he didn't have and feelings he wishes other people had. But they don't.

A relic of the occupation in Berlin is the German-American Festival:

http://www.deutsch-amerikanisches-volksfest.de/

Why doesn't Ron Paul speak of that? He doesn't know about it. He doesn't know anything about the history of American military occupation.

And you know what? The US are considering moving their bases out of Germany into Poland. And the state of Bavaria, where most of the bases are located, is upset. Granted, it's for economic reasons, but I'd hardly say that they are offended.

 

Imagine we would hear news about some idiot in Texas blowing himself up on a market place, killing 20 Texans. Imagine we would be as stupid as Ron Paul and think that that has anything to do with the presence of an occupying army. Imagine if Ron Paul blew himself up on a market place. He has the brains for it, that's very clear.

In fact only yesterday some idiot did do pretty much that, ran around and killed 10 people. Will Ron Paul find an excuse for that too? Or was that a home-grown idiot? Sure, it happens less often in the US than in Iraq, but then the people are different. Iraq doesn't have a long tradition of being a stable country with a working judicial system that does not simply execute a few thousand Kurds or Shiites when things go awry. It might not make sense to Ron Paul, but to me it's obvious that a population growing up under Saddam Hussein might just be more violent than the American mid-west.

You think you had it bad with Vietnam? Iraqis today grew up with such a war happening right at their doorstep. But I am sure it is the occupation that makes Iraqis kill each other. Absolutely...

 

Yes. And Ron Paul is a very good example. He is so far removed from the perspective of non-Americans, George Bush seems like an Austrian compared to him. He is a first-class idiot and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

It is generally a good thing that Americans fail to look at things from the perspectives of non-Americans, because the perspectives of non-Americans are often stupid.

But in the case of Ron Paul, I think seeing things from the perspective of a more normal American would be as much an improvement as seeing things from the perspective of a non-American. The guy's am experienced nutter. No wonder neo-Nazis are sending him money.

 

I believe my good fellow, that you may be confusing the issue; you keep going back to Germany as a blanket case for all American occupation. But as I keep saying, there's no comparison between the conditions after WW2 and today.

If nothing else, the U.S simply can't afford overseas military adventures anymore. Please allow me to explain

1) At the end of WW2, the U.S was the world's largest lender. Also, since the U.S was geographically removed from the bulk of the fighting it was the only major industrialized economy still intact. In short, it had the financing -and- the real manufacturing capacity to engage in overseas adventures if it wanted to.

How is this different from today? Today, the U.S is the worlds single largest debtor. Industrially, the U.S manufacturing aparatus has been decimated, not from war but from outsourcing. An economy once built on real manufacturing and useful production has been replaced with financialization and bubble markets.

This kind of economy simply can't afford to sustain over 700 military installations in over 167 countries -outside- of the U.S own borders. No one is saying the U.S should disarm, far from it. But they sure could save a ton of money if they brought those troops home (or maybe redeployed them to the Mexican border as things are getting pretty dicey down there right now)

2) At the end of WW2, the U.S was already gearing up for a potential showdown with the USSR. It was the fear of the "boys next door" that was reason for things like the Marshall plan and the prosperity you experienced...which absolutely I give credit to the U.S for, no arguments there. The U.S knew that they had to win over the parts of Europe in their sphere, or else face the very real threat of losing them to the other side without even a single shot being fired.  One of my co-workers is from Romania and he has fond recollections of listening to Air America broadcasts when it was a Soviet country. Broadcasts that, if anyone was even reported to the secret police for tuning into, would be summarily picked up and thrown in jail. So don't get me wrong here- the U.S did good things in Europe, as you yourself can attest to.

Unfortunately, your experiences in Germany were not reproduced in every country the U.S (and my own country, Canada) sends it's troops to.

In Cuba, the U.S backed and supported a strong-arm dictator that suppressed his own people with force of arms while giving lucrative business opportunities to foreign companies (many of them American) It was for this reason that the people of Cuba had a popular revolt and were driven into the arms of a communist, fast forward to today.

What about the Philippines? (not WW2, 1898) Supposedly it was "liberated" from Spain in order to spread democracy, but the reality was a brutal 14 year occupation that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead.

What about Vietnam? It effectively bankrupted the U.S economy and as the war dragged on the line between combatant and civillian was blurred as happens in all occupations.

It's not the U.S militaries fault, but rather the "Algebra of Occupation" which was written by T.E Lawrence almost a century ago when the British were carrying out their own occupation of Iraq at the time. Very little has changed in the basic dynamic that develops!

Vietnam also nearly bankrupted the U.S- If you don't believe me, research Bretton Woods and why we went off the gold standard to floating currencies- it was because the U.S broke the bank and simply didn't have enough gold reserves to pay their ballooning war debt in conjunction with the regular day to day costs of running a nation. This was not theoretical- in and around 1970 the British ambassador showed up at the gold window and wanted to pull out 3 billion dollars in exchange for some of the nations gold. Lots of coffee was spewed by central bankers that morning, you can be assured!

In order to cover up the fact that the U.S simply couldn't afford such a prolonged military engagement, we went to a system of floating currencies and financialization which now today is crumbling around us. Perhaps they will be able to find another mechanism, a third way of doing business, or perhaps this is for us what 1989 was for the Soviet Union.

So what is a "more normal" American, praytel?

Another reason I like Mr. Paul is that he voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Before the invasion, he put together a short little no-nonsense list of questions which still holds merit (if not moreso today then before!)

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

 

Wow, Leaki, way to lay it down brother. 

Shutting down military bases and resorting to new conversations?  Imagine that.  What happens to Iraq after we shut down and leave? 

Your article reads like a John Lennon song...and bears about as much resemblance to reality. But it's fun.  It is always fun to see how things change when the left is in control.  I mean "left" as in "liberal" and not necessarily by political party.

I can't say. Don't worry, you're not "leaving", just carrying out the original plan which is to leave a garrison of 30,000-ish troops in a few remote mega air bases.

But that's the funny thing, it's not my article. It's Ron Paul's article, a Republican from Texas. So, you're telling me he's a liberal?

Ron Paul, liberal?  Certainly not.  Ron Paul, absolutely insane on foreign policy (and in general)?  You bethca'!

No. Only in Austria, Japan, and Iraq (as far as I could see).

Which other countries did the US occupy for a longer period of time?

 

No, but he is still an idiot. There are right-wing idiots.

BTW the list of questions you claim have never been asked about the Iraq have all been answered. Some are obvious, some have been addressed many times; the whole list is just a left-wing myth created by the left's inability to question authority comingled with their belief that they are questioning authority.

 

If I answer all these questions, will you shut up?

Or will you repeat them in a few weeks, pretending you were never told the answers?

Anyway:

Yes.




Yes. There was no real threat against the US military. The threat Iraq appeared to be was a terrorist threat, not a military threat. Nobody believed that Iraq could harm the US or its allies militarily. It was about terrorism.




Yes. We only knew that he hadn't destroyed the weapons he had. Whether he still had them or where he hid them or whether he shipped them off we did not know.




Yes. That means Iraq was a mere 12 years late complying with this particular term of the cease-fire agreement.





No, it's not true. In fact it is public knowledge in the Palestinian territories that Saddam's Iraq paid money to Arab terrorists attacking Israeli civilians. Whether the "global intelligence community" is as clever as the average Israeli or "Palestinian", I cannot tell. Maybe they didn't know.

Yes, everybody remembered that the hijackers were from Saudi-Arabia. But Saudi-Arabia was not at war with the US and had not violated a cease-fire agreement.





Yes, he was wrong.

And if you read the news about Iraq carefully you might notice that there are indeed lots of terrorists fighting on Saddam's (and his party's) side. If you attacked me instead of Saddam, you might find that no terrorist will try to avenge my death. That's because I don't have links to terrorists.






I have no idea.



No, it's not true. Al-Qaeda were located in Biara at the Iranian border, some miles south of Sulimainiya. The Kurdish government did not control that particular part of northern Iraq until the 2003 invasion when Peshmerga (Kurdish) troops with American air support invaded the village.

More here:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2006/03/zarqawi-was-here.php



Yes.




Yes. Turns out fighting a war with the NATO "allies" is not as easy as we thought.




Irrelevant. We are tracking down those who attacked the US. Limiting the search to Afghanistan wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. The attackers, as you said, were from Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is far from the centre of the conflict.




I don't think it is what bin Laden wanted. Al-Qaeda seemed surprised not only by the attack on Afghanistan but also by the attack on Iraq.

The Arabs' worst suspicions about the US is that the US, if attacked, will react violently. That's exactly what we want them to think.

Bin Laden's plan more likely relied on the US giving in to bullying easily. That's the terrorist strategy.




Same as Hitler in 1930 can be compared to Hitler. The US should have invaded Germany in 1930 and spared us a whole lot of grief.

For me it's the gassing of people that makes Saddam a Hitler.




Refer to the War Powers act. Also note that the US have already been at war with Iraq at the time of the invasion.




No, I am not aware of such a report and I don't believe it exists.

What I do believe, however, were the eye witness reports I have personally heard when I visited a city close to the village of Halabja. Iran had no reason to use poison gas against Kurds (who were more on Iran's than Iraq's side anyway) and the aircraft flying the attacks were Iraqi. Plus the Iraqi government proudly took responsibility for the attack.





It's possible.




No. But are we prepared to wait for the country to gain the capacity to attack the United States?




Well, oil prices fell dramatically since the invasion and the war cost less than the credit crisis caused by lending money to poor people who do not repay it. So I think this point is moot now.




No, it's not true. You are confusing security council resolutions with general assembly resolutions.




Yes, that's true. Before Saddam broke the cease-fire there was no legal reason to march into Baghdad. (This is one of the questions that relies on the reader forgetting about the cease-fire terms and that Saddam broke them for 12 years.)




Yes. It is true that the UN didn't really care much about Shiites and Kurds.




I don't know. Once we find an international community that actually has rules (and does not make them up as they go along) we can try and find out.




I assure you that the majority of people in the middle east have no idea that we are doing that. I know people from the West Bank who don't know the difference between Ireland and England, let alone whether Pakistan is a democratic republic, a fascist dictatorship, or an ancient monarchy run by the family of Donald Duck.

They are not stupid, they just aren't interested in the world as much as those of us who live in the west and travel between countries a lot.




I am aware of the "alleged" gas attack because I spoke to people who were there and saw a gallery of pictures of victims in a Kurdish government building.

As far as I know the poison gas used was German but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that US companies were also involved. What surprises me is that that is an argument against the invasion or for denying that the attack happened.




No, the US did not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power. Saddam also rose to power long before the invasion of Iran, and both happened without US help. (It's a common urban legend that the CIA was involved in both, but the truth is that the US under Carter helped Khomeini to come to power in Iran and then sold weapons to Iran under Reagan.)




I guess this falls under the "forget about the cease-fire agreement" proviso.





Oil company executives tend to be conservatives, conservatives tend to support democracy and fighting fascism. It's not surprising that they would support the invasion. I don't think they support the "war", merely the invasion part of it. I have never heard a US oil company executive saying that he supported Saddam's attacks against Kurds and Shiite or against Kuwait, i.e. the things that started the war.




This assumes that they are. It's not a universally accepted fact that people who never wore a uniform are generally more in favour of war than people who did wear a uniform.

John McCain was in favour of the invasion (not "the war") and he certainly wore a uniform.

And Barack Obama was against the invasion and never was in the military as far as I know.




You can pick whichever one makes you happy: genocide, attempted genocide, threats, firing at US and British aircraft, supporting and financing terrorism, supporting Al-Qaeda by allowing them to have a base in the country, violating a cease-fire agreement.




Was that traditionally a problem when the US annexed Texas or attacked Spain?




Yes. But so did WW1 and WW2 and all the wars against Napoleon.

It is also true that the tyrants of old wanted permission to fight wars without risking losing their thrones. I don't think democracies should care about the "noble men's" principle to stay in power no matter what.




Yes. Which I assume is why Iraqis now shout at each other in parliament and don't murder hundreds of thousands of their own any more when there is disagreement.




This again falls under the War Powers act subject.




Yes.




Re War Powers act.

Can you say "Cambodia" and "Vietnam".  Come to Sheboygan and talk with the Hmong old-timers about how great it was when the US left Vietnam.

 

Islamic terrorists want world-wide domination of islam, that is their real motive.  They make no secret of that either. 

 

Well, technically they want world-wide domination of the "Islam" as defined by THEM.

They would not consider it a victory if Islam as preached by my favourite Islamic scholars were to dominate the world:

http://www.amislam.com/

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/

I, on the other hand, would be absolutely delighted if that version of Islam came to dominate the world. Sheikh Abdul Palazzi is an extraordinarily smart man and I have complete confidence in the wisdom of the Islam he teaches.

(I usually refer to it as "traditional" as opposed to "fundamentalist" or "Islamist" Islam.)

I also hope to meet Sheikh Palazzi in person one day because I want to thank him for his courage and wisdom and I am sure I can learn from him.

 

Careful Leauki, you're dripping venom.

I personally agree that the US foreign occupation policy is not currently causing any issues with people in those countries.  In fact, about a year ago I got to visit with one of my state congressmen, who had taken a trip to Iraq himself.  He says that many, many people came and actually thanked him for the help the US had provided.

The other thing is that from a military perspective, maintaining bases all over the globe has a couple very strategic values.  Firstly it allows the US to send a sizeable assault force virtually anywhere within a few hours, no small gain in war.  Secondly it makes certain that our "eggs are not all in one basket" in that something like, say, a nuclear attack won't devastate our entire military.

It's true that Ron Paul doesn't really understand these points.  I don't think that means he is an idiot.

If you think about it, he does make several good points about US foreign occupation other than the 'everyone hates us' thing.  Maintaining overseas military bases is expensive, and all the people stationed there don't get to see their families for months to years at a time.  My own father was in the Navy for awhile.  He would be gone for 3-4 months at a time, and he wasn't even permanently stationed anywhere.  As for the expense factor, I think it's fairly obvious that we really should be concerned, considering the current US economic situation.  We don't have the money to support this.  This is exactly what Ron Paul means when he talks about Rome - the empire grew too large and it was no longer possible to maintain it.

So no, I don't think Ron Paul is an idiot.  I think that he is trying to lend extra weight to his argument using information that is, in this case, false.  Most likely he had been listening to the US news for a little too long, the news which has been unquestionably biased against the war for years now.  The thing is that ignorance can be cured, but stupidity can't.  I would have at least a little more hope for the US right now if he was President instead of Obama.