It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by rogerstigers
Nice to see you again. I like your post, but one part in particular stood out.
May I take an extreme example? We believe killing innocents is wrong and we punish it. Some Americans think killing innocents is OK. What gives us the right to say they are wrong? Our laws? But what if our laws are wrong?
I do have to ask. What gives us the right to say who is right or wrong? I mean, if the entire thing is based on subjectivism and opinion, why get mad when someone has a differing opinion?
Why do we stop to help people in trouble? Because it is the "right" thing to do? But that's just an opinion. Why do we send help to the suffering in Haiti? Because it's "right?" Why do we try to stop the killing of innocents in other countries through UN peacekeepers? If the UN can do it, why can't we?
I'm sorry to sound so confused, but I'm trying to say right and wrong are not always matters of opinion, and we should not do absolutely nothing in the face of evil. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph....."
Originally posted by dontreally
Ron Paul keeps losing points with me...his isolationism is almost akin to communist isolationism...First, he says, he wouldn't interfere if Nazis were trying to take over the world, an entirely impractical course to take, and now he says economic sanctions on Iran is "economic warfare"?? SOOO? What is this goof on?
If Iran is left alone, they will reach the point where they will have their nuclear bomb, and then, Israel would no longer have their strategic leverage against Muslim countries - and this is what Iran and the Islamic group of countries want. If Iran gets that, not only is Israel in trouble, but American interests are jeopardized as well.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Sek82
Forgive me, but I don't understand why the number of Israeli nukes supports the idea that the US need not be involved in geopolitics. Is Ron Paul saying, then, that we will leave it up to Israel to defend our interests in that part of the world?
Or, is he saying that we don't have any interests in that part of the world, so defense there isn't required? Or, is there a third choice? I'd like to know.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer
You have to ask yourself, do you want to remain the worlds police force and more importantly, can you afford to be the worlds police force?
I think if relationships with other nations were built with mutual respect and as trading partners rather than as threats then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today.
Is it really America and the Wests place to topple regimes and install new ones or support certain sides in a Civil wars? Should America provide such huge military and financial support to Israel, while threatening Iran with destruction should they attain a nuke? Should America have so many bases in Europe and the Middle East?
RP's foreign policy may sound a little naive, but, it is change from the failed policies that have preceded.
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
It's a real straight forward analogy, He should use it more often. It's so true...Americans aren't at all used to reflecting their own megalomania back at themselves, it's a dose of their own medicine.
Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by dontreally
Israel would no longer have their strategic leverage against Muslim countries
You mean Israel doesn't have 'nukes'???