NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not a libertarian and so disagree with his domestic policy, however I do think we should have no government, but my question is: Do you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and being pacifistic and cutting back all foreign military money etc?

Define "No foreign entanglements". Does that mean only no milltary alliances, or no diplomatic relations? What about foreign trade?

I am not a libertarian and so disagree with his domestic policy, however I do think we should have no government, but my question is: Do you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and being pacifistic and cutting back all foreign military money etc?

Ron Paul's policy seems very similar to the foreign policy of all presidents from Washington to Roosevelt. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

Don't think a pacifist stance in today's world would work in favor of the US. Some countries would take the opportunity to strike out that otherwise are in check because of the US military. Perhaps a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Maybe an Iranian land grab near Basra. There are a ton of different scenarios that wouldn't be in the best interest of the US.

Define "No foreign entanglements". Does that mean only no milltary alliances, or no diplomatic relations? What about foreign trade?

Well I am not defining anything, I assume you know RP's foreign policy position and my question simply is do you agree with it.

Don't think a pacifist stance in today's world would work in favor of the US. Some countries would take the opportunity to strike out that otherwise are in check because of the US military. Perhaps a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Maybe an Iranian land grab near Basra. There are a ton of different scenarios that wouldn't be in the best interest of the US.

Well I guess the counter argument to that is, that the US should find security inwardly rather than outwardly, that respect of sovereignty is universal and should keep out of everyone (but the US's) business.

Well I am not defining anything, I assume you know RP's foreign policy position and my question simply is do you agree with it.

Actually, as I consider Ron Paul a right-wing nutjob that I would never vote for based on his stand on domestic issues, I never bothered to find out his foreign policy since I figured it would just nauseate me.

For discussion's sake, here's what Ron Paul's website says

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

The real question is what Stephen Colbert's policies are. And Ron Paul looks like a gremlin.

I think avoiding foreign entanglements, especially the mess over in IRAQ, is a VERY good idea. And if Ron Paul supports that, then I am more persuaded to vote for him than I otherwise would be. I believe we should avoid foreign entanglements, because sticking our nose into other nations' business is a major reason why much of the rest of the world hates us.

Define "No foreign entanglements". Does that mean only no milltary alliances, or no diplomatic relations? What about foreign trade?

I define "no foreign entanglements" as "get the @#$&%! out of Iraq and avoid any like future military operations, and stay out of conflicts between other nations that do not concern us".

Of course I support Ron Paul's foreign policy. Being the world's policeman only invites economic intervention at home and violent intervention abroad. The best thing to do is concentrate on our own defense, trade with others, and avoid the perennial crises that politicians love to capitalize on in order to increase their power.

The US is probably too involved in many areas it has no business being in (mainly as a hangover from the Cold War). But considering that it is the most powerful country in the world, it also has a role to play, simply because any major agreement it is not part of ultimately lacks power. Its military also forms a sort of "last word" that is needed to make sure that diplomacy on thorny issues gets anywhere at all.

And finally, I think the ideals of freedom and democracy which US Foreign Policy does reflect moreso than most (even if you sometimes wonder...) are not all bad. Trying to put an end to a genocide or prevent a war is not a bad thing.

So I think the problem is not the extent of US involvement in the world, it is the way in which it is done. Ron Paul offers no constructive solutions to the real problem, so I can't support him on this.

Actually, as I consider Ron Paul a right-wing nutjob that I would never vote for based on his stand on domestic issues, I never bothered to find out his foreign policy since I figured it would just nauseate me.

You consider Ron Paul a "right-wing nutjob"? Ron Paul is in favor of obeying the Constitution, rather than interpreting it according to the whims of those who happen to be in power who wish to skirt, circumvent, or outright ignore the Constitution to further their own agendas.

Are you saying that anyone who wants to follow the Constitution is a "right-wing nutjob"?

I take that to mean you want to ignore the Constitution entirely. :eek:

I am not a libertarian and so disagree with his domestic policy, however I do think we should have no government, but my question is: Do you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and being pacifistic and cutting back all foreign military money etc?

Not all Libertarians are the same, just as with any other political party.

Anarchy or no government is doomed to fail if for no other reason than outside forces.

A pacifistic stance on a group of people are satisfied in dedicating their life to your destruction is suicide. A stance of avoiding foreign conflicts until absolutely necessary, the stance of Ron Paul, and many of our founding fathers, is feasible.

The real question is what Stephen Colbert's policies are. And Ron Paul looks like a gremlin.

If he and Dennis Kucinich were nominated by the respective parties, it would be Battle of the Mythological Midgets.

Given that the US is the current Hegemon of the world I don't think the US can realistically avoid entangling alliances. That's not to say I support the War in Iraq. I don't. I'm wondering if Ron Paul wanted us to get out of NATO during the Cold War.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is dead on. We should work to be a respected force of good in the world, not another empire using our troops like Risk pieces to try to shape the world according to a bunch of politicians' whims. Soft power always overcomes hard power in the end.

I think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is largely misunderstood. Primarily what Dr. Paul wants is to have the power to declare war back in the hands of Congress, as the constitution states. The President ought not to have the authority to go to war on his own accord and Congress ought not to have the authority to write blank checks to let him.

While I cannot speak for Dr. Paul, I think that it is safe to say that he does not support American backing of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of China (Taiwan), and other such endeavours. I disagree with a strict non-interventionist policy. I think that there are times when a conflict between two other nations can be presumed to eventually lead to conflict for us. We cannot wait until we have gun pointed at our head to react.

On that issue, Dr. Paul and I disagree. However, I have to weigh no just the geopolitical situation, but domestic issues, as well. Frankly speaking, none of the other candidates available are acceptable to me, in that regard. Both the Democrats and Republicans have become parties of big government, pork, and corruption. The Democrats tax and spend. The Republicans spend on credit. If we don't do something soon, we won't be able to afford to defend ourselves, much less our allies.

I promise you that disaster is coming sooner or later, if we don't get responsible leadership. If I have to sacrifice being a world superpower in order to ensure the survival of my country and my family, then that is what I support. We just cannot afford Empire anymore.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is dead on. We should work to be a respected force of good in the world, not another empire using our troops like Risk pieces to try to shape the world according to a bunch of politicians’ whims. Soft power always overcomes hard power in the end.
Unfortunately, Paul calls for not only a removal of US troops around the world, but a re-enforcement of the US’ aloofness from both the UN and the ICC; two organisations that the US would do good by being involved in if it wishes to ‘be a respected force of good in the world’.

I do support his Congressional declaration of war position though, I think alot of conflicts would have never happened if the country needed to declare war to fight a war.

If he and Dennis Kucinich were nominated by the respective parties, it would be Battle of the Mythological Midgets.

Lol. I thought Kucinich dropped out of the race?

Lol. I thought Kucinich dropped out of the race?

I don't think so. In 2004, he continue running right up to the Democratic National Convention, so I don't see how anything short of assassination could deter him.

Unfortunately, Paul calls for not only a removal of US troops around the world, but a re-enforcement of the US’ aloofness from both the UN and the ICC; two organisations that the US would do good by being involved in if it wishes to ‘be a respected force of good in the world’.

That part I disagree with. Leaving the UN would do far more harm than good by making the US powerless and would give more power to less-than-savory states on the Security Council and other key organizations. Leaving the ICC isn't quite as bad, but I'd prefer the US participate in as many organizations as possible.

Define "No foreign entanglements". Does that mean only no milltary alliances, or no diplomatic relations? What about foreign trade?

Only no military alliances. Ron Paul supports diplomatic relations with all countries and free trade with everyone.

You consider Ron Paul a "right-wing nutjob"? Ron Paul is in favor of obeying the Constitution, rather than interpreting it according to the whims of those who happen to be in power who wish to skirt, circumvent, or outright ignore the Constitution to further their own agendas.

Are you saying that anyone who wants to follow the Constitution is a "right-wing nutjob"?

I take that to mean you want to ignore the Constitution entirely. :eek:

Ron Paul wants to follow the Constitution about as much as Cassanova wanted to protect women's chastity.

I am not a libertarian and so disagree with his domestic policy, however I do think we should have no government, but my question is: Do you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and being pacifistic and cutting back all foreign military money etc?

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending the world doesn't exist does not count as a foreign policy.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending the world doesn't exist does not count as a foreign policy.

Unfortunately for you, Paul advocates no such thing.

Unfortunately for you, Paul advocates no such thing.

Gee, I thought that was a direct quote rather than an analogy. :rolleyes:

Gee, I thought that was a direct quote rather than an analogy. :rolleyes:

A retarded analogy. I love how leftists paint anyone who doesn't want to police the world as someone who wants to stick his head in the sand.

A retarded analogy. I love how leftists paint anyone who doesn’t want to police the world as someone who wants to stick his head in the sand.
Generalise, much?

A retarded analogy. I love how leftists paint anyone who doesn't want to police the world as someone who wants to stick his head in the sand.

Yes the very same leftists who dont want the US to police the world.

Generalise, much?

Not really. This is a classic leftist smear tactic, dating back to at least the 1930s.

Yes the very same leftists who dont want the US to police the world.

Yet the vast majority had no qualms about intervening in Kosovo.

Not really. This is a classic leftist smear tactic, dating back to at least the 1930s.
Funniest quote of the day!

What happened before 1930? Bootlegging?

Yet the vast majority had no qualms about intervening in Kosovo.

So?

Funniest quote of the day!

What happened before 1930? Bootlegging?

No, before that, leftists opposed foreign meddling. A large number of the people who opposed World War I were socialists - Emma Goldman, Eugene V. Debs, and the like.

So?

It shows that very few leftists (aside from a few anarchists and the like) are opposed to policing the world.

It shows that very few leftists (aside from a few anarchists and the like) are opposed to policing the world.

I'd suppose that might do with the fact that domestic economic policy and foreign diplomatic policy are not necessarily dependent on one another. "Leftism" as according to the Political Compass, anyway...

It shows that very few leftists (aside from a few anarchists and the like) are opposed to policing the world.
It shows you’re very eager to paint everyone on the political-economic left as one giant whole, alike in all areas of politics.

It shows you’re very eager to paint everyone on the political-economic left as one giant whole, alike in all areas of politics.

I said most, not all.

I said most, not all.
You’re talking about ‘leftists’ as a political grouping that can be ascribed a certain viewpoint.

I’d say that’s mistaken generalising.

I am not a libertarian and so disagree with his domestic policy, however I do think we should have no government, but my question is: Do you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and being pacifistic and cutting back all foreign military money etc?

I agree with avoiding war and cutting back on military involvement around the world. I don't agree with Paul's, "ZOMG, Bring all troops stationed anywhere doing anything that isn't purely a US interest back to US soil, break treaties left and right, leave all world organizations, and basically pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist!" policies.

Also, Paul's domestic policy can hardly be defined as libertarian, at least on the social side of things. He's all about the government interfering in people's lives, as long as it's either the state governments doing it or the particular interference aligns with his personal morals, in which case it's perfectly ok for the federal government to do it too (even if he thinks it's unconstitutional).

You consider Ron Paul a "right-wing nutjob"? Ron Paul is in favor of obeying the Constitution, rather than interpreting it according to the whims of those who happen to be in power who wish to skirt, circumvent, or outright ignore the Constitution to further their own agendas.


He does like to say that, doesn't he? Unfortunately, all his rhetoric falls apart when you look at his record. He's made it quite clear that he's got no problem with skirting, circumventing, or outright ignoring the Constitution when it suits him. He's even gone so far as to say (paraphrased, of course), "This law is unconstitutional, but I'm voting for it anyways because it matches my personal ideology."

A retarded analogy. I love how leftists paint anyone who doesn't want to police the world as someone who wants to stick his head in the sand.

I don't know about "leftists", but I don't want to police the world and, having looked into Paul's foreign policy, wanting to "stick his head in the sand" pretty accurately describes it.

No, I don't support his idiotic and disastrous and immoral/unethical stance on foreign affairs.

We need to insure that EVERYONE, not just people here have freedom and Democracy as a secondary thing.

Furthermore Free Trade is only acceptable between Free and Democratic nations, not between a Free and Democratic nation and a totalitarian unfree regime.


Furthermore we need to further integrate ourselves into the rest of the world, as isolationism is both dangerous and idiotic.



There is not a single issue I agree with him on.
Any man who votes against giving Mother Teresa the Congressional Medal of Honour because it costs a little bit of money is completely worthless and sick in my eyes.

You consider Ron Paul a "right-wing nutjob"? Ron Paul is in favor of obeying the Constitution, rather than interpreting it according to the whims of those who happen to be in power who wish to skirt, circumvent, or outright ignore the Constitution to further their own agendas.

Are you saying that anyone who wants to follow the Constitution is a "right-wing nutjob"?

I take that to mean you want to ignore the Constitution entirely. :eek:

You know very well that's not what I said, so knock that shit of right now. I said I disagree with his stand on many domestic isssues. What part of that are you too stupid to understand? Or is it perhaps that you chose deliberately to put words in my mouth? If you truly didn't understand my words then ASK ME. Don't EVER again attempt this childish shit of "oh, you must be anti-American, since you disagree with me." You have no right to make a specious, asinine assumption and attribute it to me in an attempt to score a few feeble points. I AM NOT YOUR PLAYTHING. If you can't debate like an adult, I do not consider you a worthy opponent. You are now on my ignore list.

You know very well that's not what I said, so knock that shit of right now. I said I disagree with his stand on many domestic isssues. What part of that are you too stupid to understand? Or is it perhaps that you chose deliberately to put words in my mouth? If you truly didn't understand my words then ASK ME. Don't EVER again attempt this childish shit of "oh, you must be anti-American, since you disagree with me." You have no right to make a specious, asinine assumption and attribute it to me in an attempt to score a few feeble points. I AM NOT YOUR PLAYTHING. If you can't debate like an adult, I do not consider you a worthy opponent. You are now on my ignore list.

Chill pill, man. It's just the internet. Nothing to get so worked up over. Take it easy :cool:

Only no military alliances. Ron Paul supports diplomatic relations with all countries and free trade with everyone.

Then it's not as bad as I thought, but I still don't know that I support it.

Generalise, much?

Indeed, I am a socialist afterall.

Chill pill, man. It's just the internet. Nothing to get so worked up over. Take it easy :cool:

All he had to do was give an answer, like IGB did. Instead, he chose to ridicule me for something I didn't even imply, much less say.

Then it's not as bad as I thought, but I still don't know that I support it.

You really can't take what Paul says he supports at face value, because the policies he puts forth rarely match up with the ideals he says he's going for.

He says he supports free trade, but wants to repeal all of the trade agreements that have actually moved us in that direction (which would put us back into a situation with lots of tarrifs).

He says he wants diplomacy, but wants to pull out of all diplomatic organizations that the US is currently a part of. His "diplomacy" appears to consist of, "We're going to have the US over here, and you guys'll be over there, and we'll trade and stuff but otherwise we don't want to have anything to do with the rest of the world."

You really can't take what Paul says he supports at face value, because the policies he puts forth rarely match up with the ideals he says he's going for.

He says he supports free trade, but wants to repeal all of the trade agreements that have actually moved us in that direction (which would put us back into a situation with lots of tarrifs).

He says he wants diplomacy, but wants to pull out of all diplomatic organizations that the US is currently a part of. His "diplomacy" appears to consist of, "We're going to have the US over here, and you guys'll be over there, and we'll trade and stuff but otherwise we don't want to have anything to do with the rest of the world."

That's pretty much what I had thought his position was.

All he had to do was give an answer, like IGB did. Instead, he chose to ridicule me for something I didn't even imply, much less say.

It's still just the internet. It's some random person typing on a keyboard in some other godforsaken place. Don't get so worked up over bits and bites on a computer screen. You'll have a heart attack that way.

He says he wants diplomacy, but wants to pull out of all diplomatic organizations that the US is currently a part of. His "diplomacy" appears to consist of, "We're going to have the US over here, and you guys'll be over there, and we'll trade and stuff but otherwise we don't want to have anything to do with the rest of the world."

That sounds pretty good to me.

That's pretty much what I had thought his position was.

So you thought he supported free trade by getting rid of it and supports diplomacy by trying to withdraw from it?


That sounds pretty good to me.

Maybe, but it isn't diplomacy. In the end, though Paul likes the term "non-interventionist", what he supports are isolationist policies. And isolationist policies helped prompt two world wars and, to be honest, simply won't work in a global market and society.

You really can't take what Paul says he supports at face value, because the policies he puts forth rarely match up with the ideals he says he's going for.

He says he supports free trade, but wants to repeal all of the trade agreements that have actually moved us in that direction (which would put us back into a situation with lots of tarrifs).

He says he wants diplomacy, but wants to pull out of all diplomatic organizations that the US is currently a part of. His "diplomacy" appears to consist of, "We're going to have the US over here, and you guys'll be over there, and we'll trade and stuff but otherwise we don't want to have anything to do with the rest of the world."
That's exactly what diplomacy should be, anything further than direct negotiation or talks relinquishes sovereignty and the autonomy of the nation in favor of a NWO.

Maybe, but it isn't diplomacy. In the end, though Paul likes the term "non-interventionist", what he supports are isolationist policies. And isolationist policies helped prompt two world wars and, to be honest, simply won't work in a global market and society.

IMHO, there isn't anything wrong with political isolationism. After getting involved seemingly everywhere, I'd think a period of isolationism would be a welcome change. We don't have to worry about our boys and girls dying halfway around the world for nothing.

That's exactly what diplomacy should be, anything further than direct negotiation or talks relinquishes sovereignty and the autonomy of the nation in favor of a NWO.

And just what will that ever accomplish?


IMHO, there isn't anything wrong with political isolationism. After getting involved seemingly everywhere, I'd think a period of isolationism would be a welcome change. We don't have to worry about our boys and girls dying halfway around the world for nothing.

Yeah, that's what they thought after WWI. And then, at least partially because of those isolationist policies, we got WWII. In the end, isolationism leads to our boys and girls dying halfway around the world because we get dragged into such wars - wars that could have been prevented in the first place.

We can't ignore the rest of the world. It is there and we have to deal with them.

I absolutely agree that the USA shouldn't police the world or build nations or pseudo-colonies. We shouldn't be sending troops all over the place for dubious reasons or to start conflicts. But isolationism takes it too far the other direction. The response to becoming over-involved isn't to stop being involved at all. It is to find an optimum level of involvement that keeps us a part of the global society without being overbearing.

Soft power always overcomes hard power in the end.

QFT

...just look at China, for example.

That sounds pretty good to me.

me too.

Yeah, that's what they thought after WWI. And then, at least partially because of those isolationist policies, we got WWII. In the end, isolationism leads to our boys and girls dying halfway around the world because we get dragged into such wars - wars that could have been prevented in the first place.

We can't ignore the rest of the world. It is there and we have to deal with them.

I absolutely agree that the USA shouldn't police the world or build nations or pseudo-colonies. We shouldn't be sending troops all over the place for dubious reasons or to start conflicts. But isolationism takes it too far the other direction. The response to becoming over-involved isn't to stop being involved at all. It is to find an optimum level of involvement that keeps us a part of the global society without being overbearing.

The world is a far different place then it was in 1939. The world is far to economically globalized for there to be another World War. Never again, barring some huge accident or catastrophe, will there be a war between superpowers.

Political isolationism will not cause another major war, it will just prevent us from getting into a half dozen smaller ones.

The world is a far different place then it was in 1939. The world is far to economically globalized for there to be another World War. Never again, barring some huge accident or catastrophe, will there be a war between superpowers.

That's a nice utopian theory, but I highly doubt it's true.

Suppose we pull all of our troops out of South Korea and North Korea decides to attack. Japan will get involved, because the fighting is way too close and they are allied with South Korea. China will get involved for much the same reasons, except that they'd be more worried about Japan fighting so close. Much of southeast Asia would get pulled in. At least some European countries would end up joining the fray. Probably Russia first, with others to follow.

Under Paul, of course, we'd be sitting back going, "Not our war! We don't need to worry about it!" right up until one or other of the countries decided that we shouldn't be trading with their enemies and decided to attack us. Then we'd be in it full force - after it was widespread.

Assuming that none of these countries jump the gun and start using nukes, it'd still take quite a toll in a lot of countries.

Human beings will wage war on each other. It's unfortunate, but true. The only way to prevent that is to...well...prevent it. Sitting back and hoping it won't happen isn't prevention.

If you oppose Ron Paul's foreign policy and support the center-statist "consensus" instead, you cannot be a libertarian or a Capitalist. No libertarian can advocate murder (the aggressive war doctrine of the Neo-Cons) since libertarianism is simply the belief that murder and theft should be banned even when done by government. As Capitalism is based upon trade and not coercion, a Capitalist cannot advocate such a thing either.

Anybody who advocates a foreign policy of aggressive war should not misrepresent themselves as being a libertarian or a Capitalist.

I do disagree with Ron Paul's claim that he isn't an Isolationist. He should proudly take up the banner of those who wisely opposed FDR's attempts to instigate war with Japan. WWI led to the rise of Hitler when it would have led to a peaceful settlement that was fair to all (and possibly, no Bolshevik Revolution, which would have saved the world from the most oppressive government in history) if Woodrow Wilson wasn't a crazed Utopian. America had no reason to get involved in WWII and instigated Pearl Harbor with their act of war (trade "sanctions"). American Fascist Dictator FDR also had prior knowledge of the event, as everybody who looks at the facts has long been aware. Back in the 50s, Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy) gave a speech in which he criticized the idea of waging war against Communism because Communism is economically unsustainable and will inevitably collapse (Sen. Robert Taft, Rep. Howard Buffett, and the Old Right also recognized this). America made repeated mistakes in the Cold War by intervening in Vietnam and Korea, giving foreign aid to the Soviet Union (not to mention other dictatorships) for years (severely harming the people of those countries by strengthening the government), and by making themselves be seen as Imperialist around the world, not to mention also adopting Socialism themselves (which is inevitable if the "conservatives" adopt their doctrine of a "totalitarian bureaucracy" until they win some permanent war that will just be replaced with another permanent war). The Cold War was built on lies, just as the War on a Tactic is built on lies (the actions of the Bush regime against the Iraqi people are outright genocide and he intends to overthrow Iran's democratically elected government next). The lessons of history prove that Isolationism is the only sound foreign policy and that Imperialism is unsound and only makes a country less safe, just as history proves that Capitalism is the only sound economic system (and anybody who denies that nowadays either desires universal poverty or is delusional).

The world is a far different place then it was in 1939. The world is far to economically globalized for there to be another World War. Never again, barring some huge accident or catastrophe, will there be a war between superpowers.

This may or may not be true, but there were similar arguments made before WWI

I obviously agree with getting out of Iraq.

I also agree with not letting the president usurp Congress' power to declare war any longer.

I do not agree with pulling out of the United Nations or other diplomatic organizations.

Nor do I support any free trade with nations that are not free and democratic.

Or pulling troops out of nations that would be attacked and conquered by oppressive nations (South Korea by North Korea and Taiwan by China).

And I think this type of thinking is why so many genocides have been allowed to happen.

At first glance I was looking at seeking refuge here for intelligent debate, but the poll results shot that one down. I can't believe people think he has a clue internationally.

1- He does EVERYTHING just like, say, Thomas Jefferson did things. This means domestically, he's almost always right. Foreign policy-wise, Thomas Jefferson never lead the world's one superpower, or even a world power, so what Thomas Jefferson did isn't necessarily what he would do now (or what his halfway intelligent), especially on the world stage. What we used to do simply no longer works - we are the top dog, and we will be a target no matter what we do, and all the "blame America first" or "retreat to the borders" is not going to save us. So despite being very close ideologically, I could never vote for Paul because foreign affairs are too important right now.

2- Islamofascism IS out to get you, and it is a very serious, large, and persistent threat, capable of growing to WW3 proportions if not checked. Thought I'd throw that out there as a major premise. Bush's #1 failure as the president has been to not educate the people about this threat, using instead fear and hysteria, and otherwise pandering to the lowest common denominator ("they hate our freedom" while theoretically true, is misleading and is about the most gross oversimplification I have ever heard). Lots of solo research and studying about middle eastern history, Islamic extremism of the past (including the 35 years of terrorist attacks we've taken from this movement), and the current words, means, and goals of Al Qaeda/UBL/other islamofascists, is the best way to learn all this. Failing that, a few good books should fill you in quickly... stick to 'insiders' over journalists, ex intelligence people or folks with many intelligence contacts. Richard Miniter springs to mind for his sources, so "Shadow War" should do good and probably "Losing Bin Laden" (but I haven't read the latter). FAILING EVEN THAT... there's an 8-part video (about an hour) on youtube and google video called "Obsession" (:radical bla war on west bla bla) that should get the lazy learner interested/scared.

3- That said, it's not impossible for a Ron Paul foreign policy to "work" (as in, at least we survive) long term, but none of you would like it. It would require 2 things:

A) That the government have a strong objectivist streak. As in, downright EAGER to use nuclear weapons against people, as long as they can't fire any back.

B) You'd have to be willing to take several more serious attacks.

Given those, we could potentially "get ourselves out" of everything like Paul would work for (at a huge economic loss, and with many allies abandoned and left for dead). The formula is, get attacked (he/it doesn't allow for preemptive strikes), nuke Iran (at this point, you'll have either disarmed Pakistan already somehow, or are nuking them too, as this is about to get too ugly to leave nukes in that region). Get attacked again, nuke Saudi Arabia. With three down they might have learned... but we do call them fanatics for a reason, so there's no telling. Eventually, you'll have destroyed the densest populations of extremists (and many many innocents), and the rest will give up on you... or, you'll basically run out of either enemies or foreigners.

Sound like a plan? Thought not.

Please not Ron Paul... I'd really hate to see libertarians blamed for being soft on terror instead of democrats, and republicans not harboring another libertarian for a few decades would be a horrendous step in the wrong direction.

Peace, I'm out.

You consider Ron Paul a "right-wing nutjob"? Ron Paul is in favor of obeying the Constitution, rather than interpreting it according to the whims of those who happen to be in power who wish to skirt, circumvent, or outright ignore the Constitution to further their own agendas.

Are you saying that anyone who wants to follow the Constitution is a "right-wing nutjob"?

I take that to mean you want to ignore the Constitution entirely. :eek:

wow, love the strawman.


i don't really know who this RP guy is, but he sounds pretty much like a right wing loon to me.
the idea of cutting back on military engagements does appeal to me, however, but that would have to be replaced with greater diplomacy and certainly not isolationism. which would mean a strengthening of the role of the United Nations, for example.

wow, love the strawman.


i don't really know who this RP guy is, but he sounds pretty much like a right wing loon to me.
the idea of cutting back on military engagements does appeal to me, however, but that would have to be replaced with greater diplomacy and certainly not isolationism. which would mean a strengthening of the role of the United Nations, for example.

And FAIR trade, not just free trade.

1- He does EVERYTHING just like, say, Thomas Jefferson did things. This means domestically, he's almost always right.

So you think homosexuals and black people should be treated like second class citizens and that the government should make medical decisions for women? Jefferson probably did believe this, but it's hardly the actual conclusion of the types of policies he espoused.

You think that religion needs to be protected as a part of the government so long as the government doesn't declare an actual official religion? That doesn't jibe well with what I've read of Jefferson.