[Vision2020] Obama foreign policy, was: Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Wed Jan 18 08:10:43 PST 2012

Sunil,

 Originally occupying Afghanistan was one of the worst decisions ever in modern times. The only one that would be worse would be to leave it now.

I believe that support under the Carter administrator was little more than a paper dragon. Soviets invaded Dec. of 79, and Carter was gone 13 months later. Reagan was the real supporter of what he called the "freedom fighters". But I do agree that there is little difference between most Presidents foreign policy because they generally are not experts on all world affairs and depend on advisers and the previous administration's policy. The differences are usually slight. 

I disagree that the bloodshed caused by the withdrawal in Afghanistan would be our fault. We were the ones that created the bad situation in the country and the rise of the tyrannical government. It would also escalate violent terrorist action all over the world killing others and provide a safe haven for them, as they would know we fear entering the country and blowing a few of us up causes us to run not fight back. 

The best way to fight people that terrorize people that don't agree with their radical policies that violate even basic civil and human rights is to confront them. The best way to encourage this behavior is to allow it to occur by running and capitulating to there demands.

You are right about many things being wrong in our involvement. We have no clearly stated strategy or objective. We have placed no public limits on how long, how much money, or bloodshed, we are willing to endure.  We also need to focus on reducing the number of civilian deaths we are responsible for directly through our military action. 

Civil and human rights are important to me as well. Human Rights Watch doesn't want these people in control. Seeing these men that burn woman for suspected adultery, quartering gay men, and giving men the right to legally beat, starve, trade, sell, rape and kill woman and children as property is something that I cannot stomach. Nobody should. It is one of the things I would be willing to end with the cost of all my resources and life. 

Leaving Afghanistan will not end bloodshed, reduce costs, or increase violations of human rights. It will only increase it and move it around the world. Terrorists aren't going to stop bombing people because we leave Afghanistan. Their doing so is what brought us there. Vacating it will just give them another place to plan and hide after another 911 which they will attempt again. 

Donovan Arnold

________________________________
 From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama foreign policy, was: Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Donovan,

Support for the Mujahideen started under Jimmy Carter, but perhaps that just goes to illustrate how much the parties have in common. As for needless murder and suffering, right now we're one of the major causes for it in Afghanistan. It may go on without us, likely will, but we won't be the direct cause of it, and directly responsible for it if we leave. 

What does it mean to 'tame' Afghanistan? (pretending for the moment that we have the right.) Doesn't it mean to kill enough of them until they give up fighting? Please, not in my name. I can't and won't support that. As long as we stay, they will continue to fight us.

What's Pashtun for Wolverines?

Sunil

________________________________
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:38:05 -0800
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama foreign policy, was: Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

Sunil,

I agree with you that there will be more bloodshed if we get out. But that is why I think we should stay in. Allowing for needless the murder and suffering of millions of innocents and the potential to let nuclear weapons fall into the hands of people that would use them is a bad idea to me. That is a geopolitical hotspot for many reasons that will explode in the face of about 50 countries if there is not a stabilizing force in the region. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Wise words from a wise man that are too often ignored. 

Every land was unsuccessfully occupied until it was. I think the only reason why the Soviet Union was unable to tame Afghanistan was because the US was funding and arming them and the Soviet people weren't willing to pay the costs of achieving their objective. The Soviets were successfully defeating their enemies until Reagan got in on funding the future terrorists of the world. 

Donovan Arnold

________________________________
 From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama foreign policy, was: Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Donovan,

I think we need to get out. No one has ever 'successfully' occupied Afghanistan, and we are no different. I think it's time to leave. I agree that there will be more bloodshed after we're gone, but we have that now.

Sunil

________________________________
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:21:57 -0800
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama foreign policy, was: Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

Sunil,

Sadly, what you say is probably true. However, I don't know what choice a US President has but to maintain a presence in Afghanistan. I would think leaving there would result in more innocent blood being shed and global instability than staying. 

What is your solution? What policy do you think Obama should pursue?

Donovan Arnold

________________________________
 From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 2:47 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Obama foreign policy, was: Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Donovan,

Obama might be better than Reagan and the two Bush's. I still think his foreign policy is awful, disgusting. He kept a campaign promise in escalating the war in Afghanistan, and there is only one place that will lead:

Hundreds of dead and wounded civilians, our troops killed (in far smaller numbers) and injured and traumatized in larger numbers, and failure.

Like the Soviets who failed at the same enterprise, we will not install a puppet government that stays in power. Like them, we will fail after killing many people. I could not support that under the last administration, and I can't support it now.

Sunil

________________________________
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:10:36 -0800
From:
 donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

Nonetheless, Sunil, Obama has the best foreign policy than any other elected President in recent modern history or at least as good as any other, and certainly better than the Bush/Reagan era.

Obama killed the people who attacked the US, including Osama Bin Laudin. He didn't start any wars he couldn't finish. And he never ordered or funded foreign troops to kill innocent women and children and burn their villages to the ground. Sadly, you cannot say that about most American Presidents. 

It is difficult to be too critical of a President's foreign policy in real time because we do not know all the facts due to security and national interest reasons. It isn't like economic policy or other domestic issues where all the facts and information should and can be openly shared and debated. We can usually only judge a President in matters of foreign policy in only very basic terms such as if we are still here as a nation, is the loss of men and women unjustifiable, and are we committing too many or too little resources to the cause?  

Most overseas operations should be done in concert with other nations. However, swift action is sometimes needed and their isn't time to consult the committee when lives are in immediate danger. Mistakes, sadly, often can and do occur because of this. 

Ron Raul in contrast, has written racist articles in his newspaper, is opposed to equal marriage rights for all US citizens, and opposes a woman's right to control her own body. So he has already been discredited as a civil liberties activist. 

Donovan Arnold

________________________________
 From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Just as Ron Paul should be under close scrutiny, so should Obama and the other candidates.

Does anyone support Obama's position that our bombing of Libya was not an act of war and  not subject to the War Powers Act? It's not war when we bomb a country to weak to shoot back?

Sunil

________________________________
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:36:50 -0800
From: rforce2003 at yahoo.com
To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Of course, Paul won't hesitate to curb a woman's right to control her body: 

 http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
guess it's not a civil liberty.

Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA

________________________________
 From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:07 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul on civil liberties

Mitt Romney on civil liberties and the Patriot Act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaXfwuGmxg&feature=related

tl;dr version: "Whatever it takes to save me from terrorists!"

Compare and contrast that with Ron Paul's thoughts on the Patriot Act:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLqSlCZ27e0&feature=relmfu

or this excerpt of a talk he gave at Georgetown University:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1ofsY1kzc4

Mitt Romney is more of the same.  Ron Paul might well
 be, too, for all I know, but at least there is a chance we can turn some of this around if he gets elected.

Paul

=======================================================
List
 services made
 available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.

 http://www.fsr.net
        mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================  
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120118/51acf4db/attachment-0001.html>