“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned;

if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity;

but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

Ezekiel 33:6


"A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring."

Proverbs 25:26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

True Liberty vs. Perfect Safety

"Those willing to trade their Liberty for Security deserve neither, and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


Would Ron Paul's foreign policy make America Safer?
Whose foreign policy would make us more safe? Ron Paul’s or Rick Santorum’s?


George W. Bush made us less safe. Barack Obama makes us less safe.
Republicans like Santorum promise to follow the nearly identical foreign policy of both Bush and Obama.
This would unquestionably make us less safe.
Many Bush-era Republicans still seem to have learned nothing in the last decade. Ignoring that 9/11 was caused primarily by Islamists seeking retribution for constant U.S. intervention in their “holy land”—something Osama Bin Laden made perfectly clear—Bush launched a war in Iraq, giving al-Qaeda its best recruiting tool in its history.
Obama’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and whichever country next strikes his fancy, was a jihadist’s dream—a new American president, who despite promising “change” seemed hell-bent on continuing with the same foreign policy as the last president. When former CIA terror expert Michael Scheuer was asked in 2010 whether Obama’s efforts had succeeded in diminishing the terrorist threat, he said “I think it’s stronger than it was before 9/11, certainly because the support and opposition across the Muslim world to American foreign policy is far greater today than it was on 9/11.”
Scheuer said bluntly:
“On no other foreign policy issue since the Cold War’s end has the truth been so easy to establish on the basis of hard facts but so hard for Americans to see … that Muslim hatred is motivated by U.S. interventionism more than any other factor… Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home.”
Scheuer is a frequent FOX News contributor precisely because of his foreign policy expertise. One would think the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit might know a little something about what causes Islamic terrorism.
This phenomenon of opposition to American foreign policy translating into terrorist activity is so well-established, the CIA created the term “blowback” to describe it. Some still refuse to even address the notion of blowback, which means they will remain blind to the root problem of why terrorists want to attack us in the first place.
Could you imagine police detectives trying to stop a serial killer while completely ignoring his motives? Or how about if police simply dismissed the murderer as “crazy,” which is probably true, as many so many of these Islamic terrorists are certainly not of the same mind as you or I. Yet, in order to stop such a murderer, crazy or not, law enforcement still tries to get inside his mind, paying particular attention to certain patterns.
Yet many still stubbornly refuse to look at motive or patterns when it comes to trying to prevent terrorism. Instead, they tell us that terrorists simply “hate our freedom.”
This is childish—and dangerous.
Canada is far more libertine culturally than the US, and this is precisely the sort of “freedom” that supposedly gets the Islamists’ goat. Yet strangely enough, Canada does not find itself constantly having to worry about Islamic terrorism.
Why? Because terrorists don’t find Canadians en masse on Islamic land.
It is past time to ask the big questions:
  • How can invading and occupying a nation stop an individual or a collection of individuals from carrying out terrorist acts?
  • How can invading and occupying a nation, or a handful of nations, stop a terrorist network that exists in over 80 countries?
  • What could our presence in Iraq, stepping up the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan, or war in Libya (which you support) have possibly done to deter the so-called “underwear bomber?”
  • Would that Nigerian, would-be suicide bomber have been radicalized, or would a terrorist network be as available to accommodate and encourage his radicalization, if the U.S. did not have such a massive presence in the Middle East?
  • Do terrorists simply hate our “freedom” or is there indeed a correlation between US intervention and terrorist recruitment and activity, as Scheuer suggests?
Trying to fight terrorism by opening up more battlefronts is like trying to fight alcoholism by opening up more bars. It doesn’t make any sense. America’s hyper-interventionist foreign policy has been the norm for years, with Bush and Obama being the worst latest examples.
How is what most of the Republicans candidates propose foreign policy-wise significantly different from what Bush or Obama have done?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Unfortunately, on foreign policy, too many Washington leaders continue to fit this bill.


[source]

KEYWORD SITE SEARCH:

ARCHIVE ARTICLES:

CONNECT WITH THE PATRIOT SHEEPDOG:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic