Ron Paul Schools Rick Santorum On Iran And Foreign Policy

Follow @HassanTLP On Twitter
Follow @HassanTLP On Twitter
Ron Paul Destroys Rick Santorum On Iran! - Iowa Republian Presidential Debate
In last night's war of words toward the end of the debate over whose foreign policy would make us more safe—Ron Paul's or Rick Santorum's—the verdict is clear.

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.
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.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Iran
• Foreign Policy
• Ron Paul
• Bush
• Roll
• Lesson
• Bush (brand)
• George
• School
• Rick
• The Bush
• New
• Teacher
• America
• Laden

[ashdeano]

Does nobody notice that in this question Santorum gets 1:08 to talk and they cut Paul off at 39 SECONDS? Thumbs up for proof of Fox's favoritism...

[TheArJist]

No more wars for Israel! The USS Liberty still burns!

[1Atomtan]

@TheArJist Amen brother.

[KancerKowboy]

Rick turns pro gay rights when it allows him to bomb another country.

[superoctane]

@Steanu I dont think hes beating anyone...look at his videos on youtube.They are disliked a lot.I think the numbers are manipulated just like the debated where they ask everyone a question except Ron Paul.Its blatantly obvious and insulting to the American people.

[Critic863]

@thomsora - Yep, what a fucking hypocrite.

[Steanu]

Santorum needs a lot more schooling he is a horrid candidate. Such a moron. How the hell is he beating Ron Paul?!

[lffit]

Yeah bombing up people all over the world in the name of democracy, maybe one form of it?

[thomsora]

0:30 tramples the rights of gays? did i just hear that?

[beautifulmicia]

I suppose if Jesus returned today and was set up for a debate on television, everyone would boo and hiss at his perfectly correct comments. When we fail to vote for someone like Paul, we are merely voting down the future of the USA.

[Mikeybetts]

i LOVE the crowd's reaction and the fox new's annoyed faces at the end of Ron Paul's speech

[ST8URCASE]

if politicians were not allowed to say:terrorism,freedom,democrac­y,nuclear weapon,our way of life,they wouldnt talk very long