International Business Times : Ron Paul 2012. Why he is right on foreign policy

Great article by a huge online news entity. You guys might wonder...the MSM is admitting to the US's flawed foreign policy?

Well it is independently owned, that might explain it.



www.ibtimes.com...

The U.S. was not always this hawkish. George Washington, in his farewell speech, famously warned the U.S. against entangling alliances with foreign countries. He advocated reducing foreign political and military relationships but "extending our commercial relations," which is exactly what Paul advocates.

After Washington's presidency, the U.S. strayed farther and farther from his non-interventionist stance as its power grew. By the time the Cold War ended, the U.S. completed its 180-degree transformation into the world police.

Some of you might want to say well the world is different now, there are people who want to wipe us off the face of the earth at all costs. What caused it?

Blowback is the espionage term for unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.

I'm just so surprised that even on ATS, people are still brainwashed by the war propaganda and defend it like, well, hawks.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I'm just so surprised that even on ATS, people are still brainwashed by the war propaganda and defend it like, well, hawks.

You're not alone in that. Ten years into this and people still buy it up, like there's always got to be an enemy to fight. These days they are "Terrorists", but when one goes and looks up the definition of the word, they might start to see their own Government's actions and said propaganda as acts of terrorism. It probably sounds nuts to some reading it, but I really do wish I could get in line and act like there really has been a war on some axis of evil abroad. I'd sleep much easier at night if I could see it that way.

Ironically, if the Chinese economy and technological advances vastly outpace that of the U.S. in the long-term, the U.S. could eventually face a military threat from China. These fears are not entirely unfounded. What is unfounded is the phantom threat the U.S. is fighting with its massive military budget. (While terrorism is a credible threat*, an enormous spending on conventional military buildup is not the answer). The same cannot be said about the standing of the U.S. on the international stage. The U.S. economy is stagnating, its industrial base is eroding, its technological edge is slipping and its national debt is swelling. (Washington, interestingly, also urged Americans to "cherish public credit" in his farewell address)

*debatable, everything else spot on
As the man once said, it would appear he'd agree:

"Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism, it is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in the short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is that our foreign policy will change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted." -Ron Paul

At the end of the article you linked,

If nothing else, consider the fact that Paul has raised more money than of any other 2012 presidential candidates from members of the military. In fact, while contributions from members of the military topped Paul's campaign, contributions from individuals associated with Goldman Sachs topped Mitt Romney's campaign.

By now most ATS members might know that first fact about the source of Paul's contributions, but Romney's surprised me personally.

Military members, after all, know firsthand a thing or two about U.S. foreign policy.

Couldn't agree more. I'd listen to them, rather than those who have just been brainwashed by the MSM over the past decade. Good post, and keep fighting the good fight (not to be confused with the one against 'Terror').

Ron Paul is the anti-christ. Why? Because if he came to power tomorrow the vast majority of Americans would love him and think him their ultimate hero, especially if he rebuilt America's economy in a day.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Psh, I don't need a news article to explain why Ron Paul is right on foreign policy, he takes a common sense approach. Don't get involved in other peoples business, and stop trying to be the policeman of the world because it needlessly costs trillions of dollars and kills thousands of Americans.

In his "what if..." speech, he also calls out the military-industrial complex and calls war a "racket". I love this speech: