It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:43 AM

Ron Paul: Obama Foreign Policy Identical To Bush

Paul compared Obama’s pre-election promises to those of his predecessor George W. Bush, who before his election in 2001 guaranteed that the U.S. would not be the policeman of the world or engage in nation building. Since the inauguration, Obama has sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and and rapidly expanded the Bush-era bombing raids on Pakistan.

“Even though Obama was the so-called peace candidate and was going to bring our troops home from that war in Iraq, I’m afraid there’s evidence now that shows he’s going to pursue the same foreign policy - which was my argument during the campaign, that no matter what happens, both major parties support the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same welfare policy and there’s never really any change,” said the Congressman.

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-3-2009 by DimensionalDetective]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:43 AM

Same, if not EXPANDED foreign policy, war-mongering, imperialisms, threats and policing.

We just can't seem to learn from our past.

When our own country is falling into economic shambles, we are STILL expending tremendous amounts of resources and manpower overseas to keep our war-machine profiteering ventures going.

And on the domestic front, I don't see a whole lot of differences either---Same bail-outs and special-interest elitism-serving measures, same corrupt people being hired to the teams, same spying, etc., etc., etc....

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

sad, but true

usa continues to be looted and loot others

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:43 AM
I'd like to suggest that this lends evidence to the idea that neither of them had much choice. Maybe the situation demands this type of action. Or maybe their handlers/puppet masters have been forcing them down this road. I'm not defending bush or Obama, but we may find out that being the President doesn't mean you get to make decisions - at least if there's already an agenda underway.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:40 AM
oh come on guys seriously, Bush invented preemptive war for the US. Obama is dealing his mess not creating more. Not to mention Pakistan has been having serious political problems with their extreme Islamist sects which is a HUGE concern for us & most definitely India especially with their recent concessions. Pakistan & India both are nuclear capable and have shoot-first-ask-questions-later missile defenses aimed at each other. Meaning there is less then 20 minutes for them to react to a missile attack (conventional or nuclear), so if one fires there, they both do. The guys on the ground there keep saying they are out gunned and need help to keep from being over ran. So Obama sent them some..OMG what a bad man!
It's obvious the policy going into Iraq failed, part of that police was to drain resources & troops from Afghanistan & move them to Iraq before stability was a achieved.

Just like everyone says how "bad" zbigniew brisinski is for helping the tribes in Afghanistan get guns. Let's not forget the Russians where using their Hind Helicopters & whatever to pop Afghani "rebels" like pimples at the time. So we give them something to fight back against our then outright enemy who was trying to invade & conquer a neighboring country....OMG how bad!

I seriously seriously doubt Ron Paul's observation this time around. Especially considering the proposed time line has remained fairly consistent. Paul's concern of "residual forces" I find a bit odd too since we have bases all over, but why just bitch about Iraq? Which is in the area which is one of the most unstable and if something where to happen again, guess who the world would be begging to go back in? So seriously, I don't see how people can say he's "escalating" things when we're going to be withdrawing from Iraq. "Residual forces" are inevitable right after a conflict where we're not doing a full on retreat, which doesn't appear to be the case with Iraq.

And once again seriously: If you think there has been no changes you are just NOT looking. Obama reinstated the FOIA retro actively one of the first things, cut back employment tax for employers(meaning you should be getting more money on your check now/soon), lifted the stem cell research ban, he's released once classified documents concerning Bush's subversiveness to the public, is trying to get rid of tax incentives for offshore contracting, and is trying to shut down Guantanamo...yeah he sure sounds completely "horrible" so far...

I can't believe people here haven't learned by now, politics & decision-making from points of power is easy to say "oh yeah I'll do this" or "he should do that", but it different when all of the guns are pointed at you. Ron Paul's idea of foreign policy has always been unrealistic and right now he should be taking up his fight against the FED, not run against the brick wall that is the presidency AGAIN. Especially considering the popularity of this president & the fact he's not completely incompetent like Bush. So once again it's easy for Ron Paul to say what he wants against this administration when it was set up to look back from the get go which makes me ask...what is his motivation for this and what agenda is he pushing?

There are people fighting & dying in wars we (the US) created, now the new president has to contend with that, does that automatically make it his fault if he's not the one who started it nor was in the place to make the decision to go or not when it started? Apparently cynical Americans think so, or rather aren't thinking and just reacting. Ron Paul sometimes acts like it's plausible to adopt an isolationist stance that was dominating America before WW2, it didn't work then, and it will definitely work even less now. And while the conflicts aren't Obama's fault, they definitely are his responsibility now & even the soldiers on the ground don't agree with a free-for-all-pull-out of Iraq. I like Ron Paul, but I don't think he's right on this one blaming Obama and this administration for residual BS directly tied to the last administration. That's like saying it was Obama's idea to start Guantanamo because he hasn't been able to shut it down yet like he campaigned on.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:53 AM

I believe the above is the proper source for the article.

56 bases in Iraq?
And he wants peace?

I think not!

I think that many things are ripple effects, like ron paul talking about ending the FED, that might help end the financing of war.

Also also look at Paul talking about earmarks as well

Seems like it's all relative doesn't it?

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:31 PM
I like how all of a sudden people forget that the policies of the military industrial complex have been in place before Obama was even born. The same policies that get things like 53 bases enacted so easily. No one says there's no validity to what Ron Paul is trying to say. That we shouldn't be going out and telling everyone what to do. Yes of course, but unfortunately once again, we are dealing with the policies that I'm sure many here even voted for at one time before gaining "consciousness" that where in place long before 'Bama.

Not to mention Obama and his administration have been diplomatically meeting all kinds of nations that the Bush administration would sooner bomb then talk to. So how can Ron Paul say that? Seriously, he needs to chill out and go after the FED once again. Like mentioned here, having impact on that will rebalance influence that things like the military industrial interests have or our moves as a country. The foreign policy is being dealt with and unless Mr. Paul is volunteering to go do some diplomacy trips, he should probably save the criticism for something he can prove like the FED.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Dont bring up this old news again. You already tried to start a fuss about it with this 56 "bases" in another thread and it was quickly shot down.

Weak attempt to try and bring lies back to life.

Here is the link to your thread that explains why the number seems so big. Just incase you forgot the lesson you was taught.

new topics

top topics


log in