PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice

washingtontimes.com...

in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 1-7-2009 by ModernAcademia]

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.

This is so very true here!
The world would be a much better place if this was law.

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea.

Absolutely!
This is very reasonable and sensible!

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.

That makes a good point, without clearly identifying the enemy and declaring war there's never an exit strategy.
So it becomes perpetual war.

4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.

This would very much strenghten both the economy and national defense.

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.

Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.

OMG PLEASEEEEEEE
Stop meddling so much in foreign affairs.... PLEASEEEEEE
It's ticking the entire planet off

This is quite possibly the best article on foreign policy i've ever read..... EVER!


(visit the link for the full news article)

my only real problem is with the nation building thing.
im kind of torn. i mean..if we get into a legitimate war and steamroll that country, it seems ridiculous to fix it, but then again if we leave while smoke still pours from our rifles, whats to stop some other country from coming in and taking that land as conquest.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


Well that's where the UN comes in, not a country

This article ignores the fact that this is the 21st century, and no one will trade with a rich pompous nation that is so free and does nothing to care about the world.

The fact is that isolationism is impossible in a world where Russian, Japanese, Chinese, and European satellites pass over you every day.

The future is continental unions. I just hope the constitution doesn't die in the process.

Originally posted by Gorman91
This article ignores the fact that this is the 21st century, and no one will trade with a rich pompous nation that is so free and does nothing to care about the world.

That's what needs to change though
Once it changes, other nations will I'm sure of it

Originally posted by Gorman91
The fact is that isolationism is impossible in a world where Russian, Japanese, Chinese, and European satellites pass over you every day.

whoa whoa there bud
Isolationism?
This article is nowhere near isolationism
This is an article on non-interventionism which just means mind your own business and be nice to foreign nations and trade with them.

That is nowhere near isolationism.
Regulators forcing Sweedish banks to close american accounts is isolationism.
The cuban embargo is isolationism


[edit on 1-7-2009 by ModernAcademia]

Originally posted by Gorman91
The fact is that isolationism is impossible in a world where Russian, Japanese, Chinese, and European satellites pass over you every day.

whoa whoa there bud
Isolationism?
This article is nowhere near isolationism
This is an article on non-interventionism which just means mind your own business and be nice to foreign nations and trade with them.

That is nowhere near isolationism.
Regulators forcing Sweedish banks to close american accounts is isolationism.
The cuban embargo is isolationism


[edit on 1-7-2009 by ModernAcademia]

Neutrality, which is what you are proposing here, IS Isolationism. It is the very same philosophy which was practiced Pre-World War II, and it ended disastrously. Be honest now, and tell me once in your life when ignoring a problem ever made it better? The policy which you are stating is basically the same concept of: "Hey, that guy over there was just shot, but it is none of my business, so I would rather not assist him in the matter".

[edit on 7-1-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]

Originally posted by Gorman91


The future is continental unions. I just hope the constitution doesn't die in the process.

No no. The future is self-sustaining city-states.

You'll see what I mean in 20, 30 years ...

What does the isolationist foreign policy imply? Painfully high tariffs, import quotas, export bans, immigration quotas, martial law at the borders, walls at the borders, prohibition of lower-end jobs, prohibition of various goods and services. Taken to it's furthest extremes, it implies a ban on all trade and immigration between America and other nations. In either case, it implies a plethora of potential government interventions. This sentiment represents a sub-culture of "buy American products only" and "the immigrants are taking our jobs" people. It has culminated in a "anti-globalization" movement, constituted by people ranging from the far left to the paleo right. This sentiment is riddled with economic fallacy.

The non-interventionist foreign (and domestic) policy, in contrast, would inevitably have to be opposed to such measures. They are, afterall, government interventions in the market. The non-interventionist foreign policy with respect to foreign trade can only lead to one possible conclusion: the unhampered division of labor, voluntary exchange, is the correct policy for both inner-national trade and inter-national trade. This inevitably means that protectionist devices such as tariffs, quotas and prohibitions have to be eliminated. If we accept the principle of the division of labor within a country, we must accept the division of labor within the world. "Globalization" is the beginning of the global division of labor.

individualist-journal.blogspot.com...

There are huge differences between isolationism and non-interventionism.
My guess is that you understand what isolationism is but not non-inverventionism.

If the U.S. had a non-interventionist foreign policy it would be having a much greater role in world politics right now, but in a good way not a bad one. I would say we are closer to isolationism right now then we would be if we were non-interventionists.

Because right now, although we are meddling in every foreign affair we are also in the process alienating every nation on the planet almost.
That to me is closer to isolationism.

World War 1 and 2 is nothing compared to all the simulatneous wars we have right now.

Ron Paul speaks the truth, again. This time, however, it seems he got into the Washington Times. This strikes me as odd, but I will take the truth wherever I can get it.

Even so, I wonder if anyone will listen. As he largely gets ignored I doubt it but one can always hope. I don't see why it's so hard to understand the difference between isolationism and non-intervention, as can be seen by some of the responses already posted. I see the logic of non-interventionism but the logic gene has been pretty much eradicated in this day and age of almost total and complete brainwashing.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Nope. Can't work in a world where 10 years from now they'll begin mining the moon.

The world will not divide. It will only grow closer.

Now it seems bit imperialistic, but the constitution would so the world good. But that can't be done. So just allow every nation to act like an individual state in the world union with its own laws.


Sorry bud, but city states are impossible in this world. They simply cannot work. A city in the modern era requires an entire state and neighboring states to run it. If what you'd want were to come true, all cities that exist today would have to be deleted from the earth, all ideas of sovereignty would have to go, and the want to spread and grow would also have to go.

it's can't be done.

Even if every nation's government collapsed, there would still be enough nations with love of their military to allow a nation to continue. The people would simply back behind the army. And the army, for the sake of viability, would have to democratize ans create a kind of general's congress.


Earth will never see city states again. City states only worked in Greece because of the topography. No where else is it successful, not even in Greece today.


reply to post by ModernAcademia


Sorry, non interventionism is isolationism.

All it does is make nations have to rely on themselves more, and this inheritable leads to extreme nationalism, and that inheritable leads to racism and war.

It's simply cannot work. All nations want to rule the world. Their continued intermingeling and dependencies are what force them to work together.

This is not the same as imperialism or entanglement in foreign affairs, as the founding fathers talked about. What this is is interdependencies. Not military conflict (unless absolutely needed). This is things like global investors, vacation spots, join space ops, moon mining, research, etc etc.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Gorman91]

That was great! It doesn't seem that hard to understand how to fix this mess, but for some reason no one can understand

sorry, double posted...

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Sundancer]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Sorry, non interventionism is isolationism.

Sorry but being friendly and respecting your neighbour's privacy and not meddling into their marital relations doesn't equal being a hermit

No, i'm sorry but it really doesn't
In fact it makes you very friendly and neighbourly
which is the opposite of what a hermit is

Originally posted by Gorman91
All it does is make nations have to rely on themselves more, and this inheritable leads to extreme nationalism, and that inheritable leads to racism and war.

What Isolationism?
Ya maybe
non-interventionism?
no, not at all

That's like saying not insulting muslims but allowing them to being themselves will turn you into a racist

Your logic is extremely flawed

Originally posted by Gorman91
It's simply cannot work. All nations want to rule the world. Their continued intermingeling and dependencies are what force them to work together.
.

Yes, there is a struggle for power
You do not have to ignore that to be a non-interventionist

Originally posted by Gorman91
This is not the same as imperialism or entanglement in foreign affairs, as the founding fathers talked about. What this is is interdependencies.
Not military conflict (unless absolutely needed).
.

You said " and this inheritable leads to extreme nationalism, and that inheritable leads to racism and war"

Isolationism will, and on the same token as what you are describing, ultimately lead to what we have now. Numerous wars, blind patriotism and mass racism.

All you need to do is look at the present.

interdependence will always be impossible.
We are not borgs.

Nope. You're wrong.

Lets look at history, shall we?

As the US grew in power and got more involved, there were fewer wars.

en.wikipedia.org...:Wars_of_the_19th_century

And in this next template we see that once the US was seen as a real superpower, wars suddenly ended. And in relationship, as the US became more imperialisrtic in its wars, as opposed to simple intermingeling, more wars happened.

en.wikipedia.org...:Wars_of_the_20th_century



I'm sorry, but isolationism does not work.

Let me ask you something, How can you sustain a healthy relationship with a neighbor without helping them in their times of need?

How can that relationship sustain itself? A money-only relationship? A trade-only relationship? This is not a friendship. This is a business arrangement, and doomed to fail.



Here's the fact. When nations intermingle and become interdependent, wars happen less. When nations isolate themselves, wars happen more. When nations become imperialistic, wars happen more.

Notice even in our own century now, for the past 10 years what's happened. The US has realized how retarded imperialism is, and has slowly begun stopping it, such as recently leaving Iraqi cities. However, now notice what happens as the US begins to scale back its presence in the world and take care of its own only?

Let's see, The US is becoming more hostile inside, and nations elsewhere are tying desperately to get the US involved in a war with them, seeing this retraction as a sign of weakness.

Leaving and returning to a state of isolationism has, in fact, caused more war. Venezuela, Iran, N Korea, and a few others now are becoming more war hungry as the vacuum formers. Brazil is freaking developing nuclear subs. For what?


We should NOT be imperiealistic, but we should have an intermingled presence.


Isolationism and Imperialism both inevitable lead to war and destruction. The graphs show it.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Well that's where the UN comes in, not a country

ModAcad,

I support the article and Paul's statements in many ways, but I am a little confused when you suggest that the "UN comes in, not a country" and this contradicts his own outline (principle #1). I mean, at this point could you really even expect the UN to be effective?

Could you please clarify?

reply to post by Gorman91


Maybe the U.S. should send troops to Honduras to help the overthrown leader get back into power. Isn't this an injustice, was this man not elected? Oh...oh...but it looks like Obama is not sending any troops in, well I guess we are isolationists.

So either we interfere in all the world's problems and correct them based on our perception of what we see as evil, or we don't interfere. And if we don't then we are a nation of hypocrites. I like it when Democrats or Republicans say, "Oh we can't let country X do that"...and then the reason why we interfere WE ARE THEN TOLD into other people's affairs is because country X is doing something that effects our interest. And in reality, these interests are always to serve the few, and not the many.

So those of you who keep complaining about the Iraq war and the dying Americans or the soon to be war with Iran, don't have a leg to stand-on when you then turn around and try to make the case that we shouldn't invade those particular countries...or any for that matter. You lose the argument when you make the case that we shouldn't isolate ourselves. You leave the door open for any war...and for any militaristic venture simply because your continued skewed view of what you think isolationism means.

Yeah man by not intervening he means dont screw around in others' politics, like happened oh so much in South America and the Middle East, and look how they view you now. You can still trade and such you just cant forcefully change what you dislike and start wars. You could still help an ally defend (just not attack).
Isolationism means being self-sufficient and not relying on trade, and not meddling in others affairs, especially war.

They are really like two houses on the same street, one just further down.

reply to post by Gateway


Yeah, let's go into a country that LEGALLY ousted Manuel Zelaya because he was trying to get more time in office - IN A ILLEGAL MANNER!!!

Ever heard the word dictator? That's what he was trying to become and he was ousted in a totally legal manner with no bloodshed whatsoever.

So, yeah, let's invade these guys since I guess they don't know what their own laws are and we sure need to go fix that, don't we? Can't have other countries doing LEGAL acts to protect themselves from becoming a dictatorship, or whatever title you want to put on it, can we?

I applaud the Hondurans for getting it right. We sure as hell are NOT getting it right here in the U.S. I only wish our armed forces had done this here years ago, it was well deserved then and would be well deserved now.

BTW, I don't have a "skewed view of what you think isolationism means". You should read Ron Paul's book - The Revolution: A Manifesto and figure out the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

But whatever, I'm sure I'm peeing in the wind here. I see the motto of this site is "Deny Ignorance". You really should look into that.

this fight them over there vs over here theory has always stumped me.

We're told that War is a money making machine and yet when the War is fought "over there" , "over there" seem to get all the money to build new infrastructure that was crumbling anyway and "over here" seem to foot the bill for it in reparation and other 'financial benefits" while our infrastructure starts to crumble and age.

I also think that a War being "fought here" would be over with relatively quickly rather than the "over there" wars that seem to go on and on and on.
I guess therein lies the answer.