Americas last hope ?

I watched this video and studied the man and i go that feeling...

What about you ?

www.youtube.com...

Uhm probably the wrong place for this post?

Juliet

Originally posted by ambushrocks
Uhm probably the wrong place for this post?

That may be accurte, this should be in the canadate advacy section.

I am not sold on Ron Paul. I am not sold on the libertairian view on open boarders, i am willing to put Paul into the finnal debate, and Paul is a much more viable canidate the either McCain or THompson. Also not sold on his 'surrender now' stance in Iraq.

If the military is really behind Ron Paul, he'll get it. I just hope that the rest of America also realize that we are in a veryu important time. I think Paul is a good man, I just am not sure that he has a chance.

Sorry if this is off topic but who keeps tagging threads about Ron Paul tagging it ron paul fantasy.

Who ever this is wants to rain on people's hopes- And thats wrong to call it a fantasy- I would call it a dream. And there's nothing wrong with that is there?

I have a hunch but I won't say any names.

I say enough already-

Back on topic

I do feel Ron Paul is the last hope for America but not to get negitive he won't get it because he does not get backing from the press nor any support from his own party.



[edit on 8/17/2007 by Leyla]

Speaking as an outsider (I'm British - as such I rarely venture into the US Politics forum ), I can understand the appeal of Ron Paul to many American voters, especially given the shake-up that the US has received since 9/11 and the Bush Administration's response. Indeed, I think some of his policies are interesting (and some of them I could support myself).

However, I want to throw an idea out there for you guys to look at - Ron Paul advocates what is essentially isolationism.

Whilst I think the page on his website dedicated to 'War and Foreign Policy' is rather light on specifics, the general gist of what he's saying suggests that he would take America back to the position they were in between the two world wars. I know there's a bit of a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that the US must not isolate itself. But once you start the ball rolling, it's very hard to stop.

He hints at withdrawing from the ICC, NAFTA, the WTO, and I recall reading that withdrawing from the United Nations and NATO isn't out of the question. The US did this after WWI - they didn't bother to get involved in the League of Nations, and without a superpower such as the United States the whole thing basically failed to prevent World War II. Paul also says that the US shouldn't be involved militarily in other nations' affairs.

So what? Why should Americans care? It's none of your business if other nations want to fight each other, right? Wrong. Isolationism has come back to bite America once before, just as the policy of appeasement (which is, I think, closely linked to isolationism - they are two faces of the same coin) came back to bite Britain and France. At Pearl Harbour, many American service personnel lost their lives because isolationists believed the world simply wasn't their problem - thinking something will go away if you ignore it is completely illogical. The world showed them that disengagement meant paying an unacceptably high price. An America engaged in the world can counter potential threats to itself and its allies pre-emptively. And if you stop something at an early stage, it rarely requires military action at all.

Like it or not, a nation as large and as powerful as the United States can't simply close its doors and ignore the world. It would be bad for every single democratic nation on earth, and I'm sure there's nothing more that the Russians and Chinese want right now.

I think if the US adopted a foreign policy along the lines of that advocated by Ron Paul, it would ultimately be bad for America - economically, politically, militarily and diplomatically. I'm sure in the short term there would be positive results... no more American soldiers coming home in coffins. But in the long term, it could lead to many, many more lives lost because of disengagement (exactly like Pearl Harbour and the war that followed).

Perhaps you disagree... maybe you think Ron Paul's foreign policy would be the best thing for America right now. I'd be interested to hear your views on the subject within the framework of a civilised debate. But I stand by my view that an engaged and outward-looking America is better for Americans and the rest of the world.

You said it great right there Ste. I don't agree that our troops have been staying there for years, we should be hiting counties and letting the take thier own demcatic path, with a little outside assistence, we shouldn't have a majority of our military in one area for any leangh of time realy.

There are something that agree with him him on, just with every(almost) canidate, but he is not my chice, not righ tnow at least.

Originally posted by Ste2652
However, I want to throw an idea out there for you guys to look at - Ron Paul advocates what is essentially isolationism.

I personally have been calling for isolation for about seven years now. I don't think the United States can preserve itself, and continue to be a major player in world affairs. I don't... Of course, my main concern is the survival of my own nation and let the rest of the world do as it will...

I hate to feel that way, but that is just how I feel. We have been major players in the world for the last 80 years and it has gained us little other than ire and hatred from the world populace. I personally think, as in the words of George Straight, it is time for the "Cowboy to ride away."

By the way Steve... "The world" isn't our problem.. We aren't in anyway obligated to the world... We are obligated to our own citizenry...

I have personally stated that America should just watch the world and tend to its own business... If someone deems that Amerrica should be attacked, then let them. When they do, then you react with terrible vengence, leaving their nation is ashes.



[edit on 18-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 18-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

My point is that isolationism makes America more likely to be attacked, and such an attack forces the US to mobilise its armed forces and send its young men and women into harm's way on a larger scale than would otherwise be necessary.

I also disagree that you can just withdraw from the world and forget about it - you can't, as Pearl Harbour shows. I sincerely hope that those lives were not lost in vain and that Americans don't make the same mistake again; isolationism is not a solution to any of America's problems.

Originally posted by Ste2652
My point is that isolationism makes America more likely to be attacked, and such an attack forces the US to mobilise its armed forces and send its young men and women into harm's way on a larger scale than would otherwise be necessary.

Nah, look at China... They have been isolationists forever... People don't mess with em'. They are scared of em' and rightly so.

Ste, I don't only think that the U.S should become somewhat isolationist, I think inevitably, it will. As the pressures of being a "superpower" becomes more streneous, and as the American public becomes less and less inclined to further substantiate such a stance, it will draw into a shell...

It may not happen within the next 10 years, but I'm willing to bet it will occur within the next 20-30 years. In some ways, it will be unfortunate because many of the world's nations will wonder where America is when atrocities take place... America will still be, but it will have a pacifist attitude.

It will get to the point to where if it doesn't directly affect America, there will be no mad rush to become involved. It is already taken place within the mentaliuty of Americans. Most Americans don't even keep up with the news. If it doesn't directly affect them, they don't care. Within the next thirty years, that sentiment is also going to filter into American politics.

Originally posted by TKainZero
I am not sold on Ron Paul. I am not sold on the libertairian view on open boarders, i am willing to put Paul into the finnal debate, and Paul is a much more viable canidate the either McCain or THompson. Also not sold on his 'surrender now' stance in Iraq.

Ron Paul is not for open borders and infact voted for duncan hunters border fence bill. His stance on the issue is very clear, he wants a strong national defense. Who are we surrendering to in Iraq? The iraqi army was defeated, saddam deposed, and the country has had 3 elections. Let them handle their own internal affairs, it isn't the job of the US military to police a country, it certainly is not meant to handle dispuptes between local neighbors which is what they are doing while the Iraqi government is on vacation.

Ron Paul is also not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist which is different. Ste with our current interventionist foreign policy we are more likeley to be attacked, Bush and his admninistration have done nothing to secure this countrys borders since we have been attacked on 9/11. Millions are flooding through and have been doing so for years and we dont even know who they are, it's actually been reported that foriegn terrorists are working with mexican cartels so they can get smuggled into the country. The man who orchestrated an attack on this country, UBL, is still at large. According to the last NIE report, AQ is seeking bio and chemical weapons and are almost operating at full strength again in pakistan ( a country we subsidize ).

Ste my countrys national debt is almost at 9 trillion dollars, and we're due to owe over 60 trillion in liabilites over the next 50 years. We have bigger fish to fry but instead we focus on a bunch of third world countries while ignoring the sovereignty and security of our own.





[edit on 18-8-2007 by ape]