It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Since when did being Conservative mean you have to support Imperialism?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The only two criticisms the main stream media can find to slam Ron Paul is the 20 year old racism comments which he has proven by action to be inconsistent with his views, and, that his foreign policy is isolationist.

I think Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense as much as anyone but since when does being conservative mean you have to support US Imperialism. We are involved in too many foreign conflict, nation building, regime change and covert insurgent activities.

I’d like to see other people’s opinion of what you think conservative means from a foreign policy standpoint. Personally I think my comments above are representative of most of the republicans AND Democrats in the US.

Personally even if I was an advocate of foreign engagements I would still tolerate Paul’s isolationist views on foreign policy in order to also get his economic policies implemented. Someone has got to reign in the Fed. Here’s what it really boils down to…US States and Individuals are getting weaker while the Fed and Congress gets stronger – domestically and abroad. I we keep up our imperialistic march, sooner or later the rest of the world is going to realize they better band together and stop us or it will be too late. We seem to have the view from a foreign policy standpoint that is us or them but it can’t possibly be us AND them.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
It helps to remember just what politicians have been doing to the Webster dictionary by redefining words or terms. It's just an attempt to create the illusion of having the support of people where there are none. Kind of like dead people having their names turn up in vote results long after they passed.
edit on 30-12-2011 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Roles and identities change. It all depends on who is in power at that given moment. You see this isn't about ideology even though it might seem that way. It is about a specific agenda (New World Order). Doesn't matter what party label is in office, ultimately they serve their purpose which is to continue down the road towards a fascist/communistic (or Stalinist) society largely separated by elites and slaves.

The book 1984 touches on this subject quite brilliantly - We were always at war with Eurasia.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 

I think it's going a little too far to describe US actions as imperialism. I know that's a word with many different meanings, but it's emotionally loaded.

I will quickly agree with you that we are not executing our foreign policy well, but I'm not sure how we can tell we're in too many.

I'm not sure that I'm qualified to speak for Conservatives, but I would think the goal would be two-fold; to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I would like a candidate who can handle both sides, foreign and domestic. Ron Paul may be excellent on the domestic side, I don't know, but the fear is that he will allow international situations to develop which we cannot defend against.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
dictionary.reference.com...

im·pe·ri·al·ism

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British . the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

No I think that describes our government very well, covertly mostly.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 


It kind of happened when Nation Building became the popular thing for Govt.
I see it as a Progressive trap, baited for the those that go to war.
It serves many purposes.
First, it spreads the ideals of the waring nation.
Second, it allows the Govt to spend money in ways that would make your . spin.
Third, it funds the friendly companies to the corrupt Govt. One hand washing the other.
Forth, it makes the whole War thing less tragic, as after the enemy is "bombed", they are helped back up. That, to me, is mind boggling.


Now, this is not owned solely by either party, as both display and operate under this premise.

I say, if you go to war, scorched earth, and back home for a beer at the end.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 

Dear Chewingonmushrooms,

I'm a little disapointed in the reference dictionary. You ask it to define imperialism and every definition has "imperial" or "empire" in it. That doesn't work out so well.

I know we have influence in many parts of the globe, but I think that's because everyone is a close neighbor to everyone else now. I don't think we control anyone, heck, we don't even control Israel or Canada.

But the point isn't about the word imperialism, it's about Ron Paul's foreign policy.

With respect,
charles1952



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

If the U.S. is not an imperial power, there never has been one. Foreign policy is one of forced cooperation in a global economic system. The few that control this economy are eliminating any possibility of failure, or any possibility they will be held accountable for crimes against humanity.
The purpose is absolute power, and the closer these bastards get to their goal, the greater the suffering of those "useless vessels", us, that share the earth with them.
They need to be brought down. Period.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



IMO Ron's foreign policy is one of his strong points. If you believe that we aren't actively involved with the destiny of at least 2/3 of the world's countries then I don't know what to say. Imperialism of today isn't the same as it was in the past. It is done economically, through bribery, coercion and blackmail. I hold no apologies for my belief that thinks globalization is a trap and the elimination of our sovereignty is the intended goal. The crying foul over the term "isolationism" is intended to push people into believing we need to consolidate our borders and economy with others for the sake of business and security (exactly the opposite in my view).

F. free trade, F. global economy, and F. the elites. Let us start our own economy, kick out the jackals (FED, transnational corporations), re-write our banking laws and demolish the size of our bloated federal government. Institute true state rights and have power concentrated on the local level. That means a drastic change in our lifestyle for sure but at least we will have our freedom.

edit on 30-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 

Dear SurrealisticPillow,

Thanks for making your point clearer. I thought of empires being Rome, Britian, Spain, even the Dutch took colonies. But I'm willing to agree that the American economy is heavily influenced by a relatively few people. I also agree that power should not be concentrated in a few hands, but distributed to the people.

But I thought the OP's concern, and mine, was Ron Paul's foreign policy. If the "elite" are big enough to take on the world, President Paul won't stop them.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   


Since when did being Conservative mean you have to support Imperialism?


Around the same time that being Liberal became synonymous with Socialism. You see, if the right paints the left with such a broad brush, then turnabout is fair play.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Conservatism has changed definitions many times over the course of the entire existence of the term. Traditional conservatism is first and foremost based on the preservation of personal liberty, and while recognizing the value of faith and religion, conservatism seeks to separate the religious zealots from the policy that is put in place.

Unfortunately, religious extremists have taken over the conservative movement and the Republican party. That separation of faith and policy is no longer acceptable within the ranks of the "new-age conservatism". What we now have is a party that hijacked the conservative nametag, injected religious extremism and force their arrogance onto not only others within the US, but also around the world.

That is why we have war. Throughout the dawn of man, religious arrogance has been the cause of almost every war we have known.

This is also the reason for our close ties to Israel. We have religious/war common ground.

So while those in the Republican party may use the term "conservative", they are not. The real term they should use is "neo-fascism". It has been the "conservatives" that have done more to put policy into place that takes away personal freedoms in the name of security and have labeled all those who oppose that mindset to be "terrorists, liberals, or progressives".

Ron Paul is one of the few people left that actually understand this and govern accordingly. I fear it may be too late for someone like Paul to make a difference anymore. The neo-fascists have a stranglehold on America. Eventually it will black out.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 

Dear Chewingonmushrooms,

I'm willing to accept, for now, that Ron Paul is strong domestically. May I take an extreme example to hint at the direction I'm worried about?

Say Islam takes Africa, and Russia and China form a close alliance. Assume further that Europe gets weaker and weaker until it's insignificant, and the Russia continues its expansion into Europe.

A committee consisting of the .s of Islam, Russia, and China tell the American President to allow their military bases on our land, or return the Southwest to Mexico, or any other exorbitant demand. Given all the world's might against us and a severely reduced defense budget, what can the President do? We lose.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


As of a 2003 report the US had over 700 military bases in over 130 countries and over 6000 bases in the US and it's "Territories". Our military budget is larger than the gross national product of all but 3 countries in the world.

How do you not call the Imperialism?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


That's exactly the type of mentality that has gotten us in this mess in the first place and allows things such as preemptive war possible. It's a fear tactic. I don't fear Islam I fear international bankers. I don't fear Russia or China I fear us going into their backyard and provoking them.

We are divided by two massive oceans and have enough land mass for several countries. We have spent trillions on defense (offense) and sell them to countries. Our actions in other countries contribute to blow back and destabilize our security more so than any hypothetical of Islam taking over Africa and uniting with Russia and China.

It's the same fear tactic used when people want to justify torture by saying "we have a terrorist and only he has info on a nuclear attack to happen in 10 cities, do we torture him". It's manipulation at best. I say instead of hypothetical’s why not look at reality which is if we continue down this road not only will our economy collapse, but we will no longer be known as USA any longer. You can bet on that.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 

Dear beanandginger,

Thanks for the information. We just have different ideas of what imperialism is. But I don't think that is important to this thread. The question, I thought, was why do the media criticize his foreign policy stands?

I'm uncomfortable for reasons I've mentioned above. Additionally, do we ignore massive human rights offenses? We certainly have that option, but do we want to?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

If we are to address the atrocities committed by country, the U.S. would be high on the list. Why don't we start there? Why don't we stop bombing the hell out of sovereign nations and killing their people? The U.S., with help from their co-conspirators committed genocide in Iraq, committed war crimes in Libya, is working to destabilize Syria and Iran, guards the poppy fields and shoots innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
What the hell, are people blind?
Since we have allowed our federal government to be taken over by an international, Zionist criminal cabal, the same group that destroyed Germany in WWII, we create money for the machinery of endless war. Money is created to pay our government officials off handsomely to look the other way. This supply of money is endless, and thus the evil these men do is endless as well.
UNLESS, we get control of our country back.
Ron Paul is a threat to this establishment, and for that reason alone, we should all support him.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I was hoping there would be some middle ground between Obama and Paul, sort of a "smart interference" foreign policy. I suspect now that that is not to be found, at least not here. Oh well, let me wait for a couple of months and I'll take another look. Things change.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by beanandginger
 


Since the media began beating the war drums against Iraq "Conservatives" (IE .. Neocons) have somehow managed to convince the majority of Republicans that war is cool. If you don't support war, you're not American! All we have to do is listen to Bachmann for confirmation: "We need to go to war against Iran because they have WMD's! And .. and .. because they suck!"

It's harder to convince Liberals to go to war, it's usually very subtle.. basically what you do is tell them we are doing it for Humanitarian reasons and never post the civilian casualties on the news. This is why we killed thousands in Libya and Liberals cheered it on .. and why Republicans had an identity crisis over whether to support it or not. We also stopped posting civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan on the news so that Liberals would believe it was "winding down now". Ahem.. even if over 30% of the Iraq war was fought under Obama....

Basically my total opinion: People are stupid. They do what the glowing box tells them to do.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Very good points. Media manipulation is an art, and human stupidity a given.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join