Failed US Foreign Policy? Is Ron Paul the Answer? History Says NO!

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I know some posts on this topic have become heated. This thread is about the direction of US foreign policy. It is not a rant-festival. I will outline and justify the foreign policy direction that I think is appropriate for US while pointing out the flaws in Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I urge anyone who disagrees with me to respond with substantive posts and refrain from anti-American potshots (as much as I’d love to argue…I do want to gain a new perspective here). I will either show you that RP’s foreign policy is a failed idea or I will eat crow!


I contend that Ron Paul’s idea of foreign policy is VERY dangerous and I will explain why. Ron Paul has proclaimed several times that, if elected, he will close all overseas bases bringing all US troops home.



The US has tried this before…and it led to incredible loss of life. Before WW1, America followed an isolationist agenda heeding George Washington's warning not to become involved in European wars. Having established a unique representative democracy after defeating the British Empire, US wanted nothing to do (militarily) with the rest of the world (much like Ron Paul and Paulites wish today). In fact, President Wilson went as far as to declare US neutrality. President Wilson said the following to the nation:


The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say and do. Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.

The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men's souls. We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.
link

Sounds an awful lot like the Paulites of today, does it not? US were eventually drawn into this conflict because American interests and the lives of the US citizens were jeopardized.


United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.
link

After WW1, US sentiment for isolationism was even stronger.


In the aftermath of the Great War, as American troops came home from Europe, the United States became permeated by a sense of disillusionment as people observed the turmoil continuing in Europe in the years following the terrible conflict. In 1921 Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes called for a naval conference in Washington to address the armaments race that many had seen as an underlying cause of the First World War, the first of many steps taken internationally to try to prevent the outbreak of more war.
link

There was a great push in US for disarmament, much like I hear today. Every time “nuclear Iran” is debated here on ATS, someone inevitably asks “why doesn’t the US disarm” and “what gives US the right to possess WMD?” The fact is, US have agreed to some level of disarmament several times throughout our history. US wanted reduction in arms after WW1 and a great arms race ensued.


The Washington Naval Conference convened in November 1921, and in the opening address Secretary Hughes gave a candid speech in which he declared that “the way to this arm is to disarm,” and that the time to begin was immediately. Thus he proposed a 10 year holiday in the construction of capital ships—battleships and heavy cruisers—and he also recommended the scrapping of other ships. One British reporter claimed that Secretary Hughes had in 15 minutes “sunk more ships than all the admirals of the world have sunk over the centuries.” The Washington Conference was a landmark event, and it was followed by other attempts to reduce armaments and control the forces that tended to lead to war. Further conferences were held at Geneva and London, but ultimately none of the agreements ever prevented anything significant.
link

@ 100,000 businesses in US failed and unemployment rose to @24%. All of the world economies faltered. This should have been the end of violence and aggression, right? We beat the enemy, again began to disarm, and called for peace in the world. So did this prevent another war? Did the “peaceful” nations of the world reciprocate or follow the lead of US? NOT ALL OF THEM!!
No, instead Germany had plans to take over the world…

US swung back into isolationism after WWI and President Roosevelt turned his back on Britain while Hitler's military swept through Europe. It really wasn’t until the attack on Pearl Harbor that US finally entered WW2, defeating yet another German threat as well as a new threat from Japan.

Summary of American policy 1920-1939 and beyond:

• The Red Scare of 1919—"100% Americanism—follows World War I. Americans want to let Europe stew in its own juice, etc. Americans show an incredible indifference to the fate of Europe during the 1920s

• The U.S. follows foreign policy that is narrow, cautious, and self-centered and refuses to be bound by any agreement to preserve international peace. (No “entangling alliances.”)

• Anti-Japanese immigration policy; tight immigration laws a paradox considering number of immigrants already in U.S.

• The U.S. military is reduced to 118,00 by 1927.

• Washington wants World War I debts paid, quarrels with almost everybody over various issues. America had loaned Allies during and after war a total of $11billion. Great Britain proposes canceling reparations debts if U.S. will cancel Great Britain's $4 billion debt. U.S. refuses.

• The nation remains primarily isolationist throughout the 1930s.

• As WWII nears, the U.S. becomes increasingly involved in world affairs and takes a leading role in maintaining world order.

• In World War II the U.S. becomes the dominant world power.

• As the Soviet Union rises in the years following World War II and the Cold War builds, Americans learn they can no longer live in isolation.
link

After WW2, US helped Europe rebuild (Marshall Plan). The US and Allies ordered Germany to stand down and forbade Germany from having a standing military. Billions of US taxpayer dollars poured into Europe to help them rebuild. The US learned from the aggression of Nazi Germany and the great losses from the world wars that threats to national security must be stopped before they are allowed to grow like a disease. US also learned that isolationism is not a deterrent to aggression. The way to stop a bully is through strength…period. Ronald Reagan – Peace through Strength.





posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


CONTINUED...

Isolationism led US into 2 World Wars! Disarmament became a pipe dream and reduction in arms was the new mantra. Throughout the aftermath of WW2 and into the 70’s and 80’s, another growing threat to freedom and democracy emerged - communism. The Korea and Vietnam wars were all about stopping the threat of communism. After beating back communism in both of those wars, US helped those countries rebuild with millions in taxpayer dollars. All of the front groups we used in in the Middle-East to stop the rise of communism began to splinter and pursue their own interests. Terrorism, as a tactic, began to rise. The groups we see today in power in the Middle-East are a direct result of our actions over the past 50 years.

SO…those who blame the US for the aggression displayed by some nations in the Middle-East are partially correct. However, this aggression is not a result of US occupation, murder, or genocide as many ridiculously claim, but US is responsible for some of these monsters.

Nevertheless, the current threats to global peace, regardless how they came to be, are a clear and present threat to global security. The fact remains that, like the threats in the past, these new threats must be dealt with lest we relive history and suffer a greater loss of life in the future.

If we did decide to ignore the new dangers in the world we would suffer many serious consequences, and I think closing bases overseas would lead to the following:

• Unstable, terroristic regimes will rise, creating regional war on a grand scale

• US borders will be compromised

• Weaker nations will be run over by stronger adversaries

• International trade will be negatively affected, endangering the global economy

• The world’s oil supply will be cut off

• Inevitably, one of these rogue nations will resort to nuclear warfare

If the US withdraws from its international responsibilities, not only will democracy suffer, the world will quickly become engulfed in WWIII with fringe groups armed with WMB trying to flex their muscles. As history has demonstrated, bad things will inevitably follow when aggression and tyranny go un-checked.

You CANNOT turn your back on aggression or bury your head in the sand without severe consequences.



Isolationism DOES NOT WORK. As a superpower, the US does not have the luxury of isolationism as other countries have enjoyed throughout history.

There’s a big difference between having troops stationed overseas and policing the world. I don’t want to police the world either. Countries (much like individual states in US) should be responsible for their own policing. But there are certain types of aggression that should be handled by a higher authority. Tyranny and aggression against cannot go un-checked. I’ve shown what happens as a result…

I argue that Ron Paul’s idea of foreign policy is dangerous. Limiting the US and allied presence in the world will lead us into WWIII. The US has the power to wipe the world clean of humans but instead has helped other countries prosper. Has the US benefited from the interventions into other countries? Of course, but so have they!! Does that mean the US is trying to oppress people? Absolutely not!! Bases overseas are NOT occupation.

If you feel strongly about Ron Paul’s plan of withdrawing all US troops from overseas, please tell me how this will make America safer. Please tell me how this action wouldn’t be exactly like the isolationism of the past that led to the wars of the past 100 years. How can we ignore the threats we face today when the threats of yesterday led us to painful wars and loss of life? Please justify closing bases overseas, otherwise you must denounce RP’s foreign policy.
edit on 21-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


+52 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


What a bunch of hogwash. I could argue very well that if the USA had not got involved in World War I then Germany might have been able to achieve a stalemate against the Brits and French and there would have been no feckless Wiemar Germany and almost certainly no rise of Hitler.

Furthermore, a German victory or negotiated peace in World War I would have almost certainly prevented the formation of the Soviet Union, so you see the policy of sticking our noses in where it doesnt belong can and usually does have even worse consequences on down the road. It is for that reason our founding fathers in all their wisdom warned us about foreign entanglements.

It's also becoming apparent that you neocons won't stop until the entire world is in flames, but just remember you're going to fall along with the rest of us.


+39 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
We have no money. Understand?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
"Worse? how could things get any worse take a look around you seabag we're at the threshold of hell"


+10 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Please sir, by your own postings you have bragged what a great Military Machine the US has, and its true.

But back 70 80 years ago , it took weeks for a army to move around, to react, nowadays , with Aircraft carriers, planes flying at mach speeds, theres no need to be in everyones backyard, you can respond in hours.

Your thread is a massive fail.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
i gave you a star because you have a very well written post that is easy to understand and follow, but, i do not completely agree with you.

world war 1 and world war 2, america went with isolationism, which helped a good bit i personally feel with developing our country. what got us involved was not isolationism, but the fact that we were attacked; by german u boats in ww1, and by japan, fully starting ww2.

i personally feel we should go back to a sort of isolationism, at least in the sense of militarily. we do not need to be everywhere at once. financially we can support it, the people for the most part dont want it anymore (as in us citizens and people around the world) any issue that may arise should we remove our soldiers from bases around the world should be taken care of the people who live in the countries where those bases are established. this would not make us a weaker nation, not by any means. our soldiers would be brought home and this would help establish a powerful national defense.

now if the threat was something that all nations of the world need to be involved in, thats another thing. if a country rises to power and went about things like they were nazi germany on steroids, then yes we by all means need to get involved. but at this point in time, with a relative form of world peace (as in wars are now mostly few day skirmishes, and the wars that are wars, only a few a handful of causalities compared to the rest of history) there is no need for america to be all around the world in every ones business. this is just my opinion though.

again, awesome post sir. lets hope things remain civil in here.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Count Chocula
What a bunch of hogwash. I could argue very well that if the USA had not got involved in World War I then Germany might have been able to achieve a stalemate against the Brits and French and there would have been no feckless Wiemar Germany and almost certainly no rise of Hitler.


Yet....

That's not how it played out now did it?


Furthermore, a German victory or negotiated peace in World War I would have almost certainly prevented the formation of the Soviet Union, so you see the policy of sticking our noses in where it doesnt belong can and usually does have even worse consequences on down the road. It is for that reason our founding fathers in all their wisdom warned us about foreign entanglements.


Pure speculation but I'm sure it will be popular


It's also becoming apparent that you neocons won't stop until the entire world is in flames, but just remember you're going to fall along with the rest of us.





Right off the bat name calling...


We can see which way this thread is headed...


+13 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Well I didn't read it all because I hit that word "isolationist" and that is not what Ron Paul's foreign policy is. Ron Paul's foreign policy is less intervention meaning we do not need 900 overseas bases. It means we continue to engage countries with diplomacy and trade. Isolation is - well - isolation. Meaning cutting ties with other nations.

Simple fact is that you reap what you sow - you elect a bunch of people beholden to an industry that needs to sell bullets, missiles, and helicopters - then they'll find a reason to exhaust what we have and buy more. You'll be hard pressed to find any President of the era you laud that would believe that we're on the right path militarily.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I don't see what is wrong with returning us to a strong national defense. We are immensely weaker having our troops spread out in vulnerable positions all over the world, our supply lines stretched thin, and our military industry so caught up in politics that a single plane costs several billion. We're in a very weak position right now.


+3 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


So now the neocons are offended by being called neocons


So slayer when you signing up for the ground war against Iran? I'm guessing NEVER, you will be more than happy to sit home like the rest of the chickenhawks and watch another disaster unfold on the tube.

You know kinda like how Rush Limbaugh avoided the draft for the Vietnam war by having a zit on his butt.

Limbaugh Chickenhawk



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Count Chocula
 


The only way I would go to war is if we were fighting Europeans, I would feel honored to fight and die on our battlefields of our grandfathers.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Count Chocula
 


So there is no confusion Count, I actually like many things Dr Paul has to say. Not all. There is the difference. When a war with Iran breaks out let me know. Until then it's all FEAR mongering..

What?

Now I'm supposed to defend Rush?
The guy is an ASS.

Good try though.



PEACE

edit on 22-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I'm no Ron Paul expert, but I'm pretty sure this is the foolish argument everyone always comes up with in regards to his foreign policy. Being neutral, fair, unbiased, and non-invasive is not the same thing as being feeble, unresponsive, and susceptible to aggressive nations. It simply means not going to war for corporate interests or self-serving ego preservation. We would still respond to egregious human rights violations, genocides, and other conflicts that threaten good people who have done nothing wrong. You make it sound like we would go from being the bully to being the nerd getting beat up (to use a bad analogy). The way I see it, we would go from being the bully to being the teacher who steps in when the nerd needs defending. People like to think that is the way we are now, but sadly that's just the front our gov't puts up. Ron's policy is not isolationism (unless your definition of isolationism is not being a egocentric control freak).



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
We have no money. Understand?


Maybe we should drop Obamacare!

We're never too broke to be free and safe!



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Honestly, few people truely care about the details at this moment. Paul supporters generally seek for our government to be reformed on a fundamental level. Many Americans would rate their government as a top 5 threat to the future of our nation... Something is deeply wrong on the inside.

First priority is controlling our own nation, then we get back to being a good citizen of the world. One begets the other.


+10 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Maybe we should drop Obamacare!

We're never too broke to be free and safe!

The US spends more than the next 14 countries under it in Military.

So...... lets cut Health Care.

OK



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Ron Paul is not a isolationist he's a non interventionist there is a difference. And the US if we were to follow the wishes of the founding fathers would be following this system. In the United States, this foreign policy has been advocated at various times in the country's history, notably during the first century of U.S. history. George Washington, the first U.S. President, advised the country to avoid "foreign entanglements." Thomas Jefferson favored "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." John Quincy Adams wrote that the U.S. "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."




If you feel strongly about Ron Paul’s plan of withdrawing all US troops from overseas, please tell me how this will make America safer. Please tell me how this action wouldn’t be exactly like the isolationism of the past that led to the wars of the past 100 years. How can we ignore the threats we face today when the threats of yesterday led us to painful wars and loss of life? Please justify closing bases overseas, otherwise you must denounce RP’s foreign policy.


Because our military would be used for defense of our boarders. We should be building bases here at home not overseas that just adds money to their economy not ours. The reason why these people are threats is because of our bases over there remove the bases remove the threat. Besides we can be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours so bases really aren't needed.
edit on 21-1-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I fail to see why we can't do both.

Bring troops home, except where they are wanted.

Improve weapons delivery, such as drones, aircraft carriers, submarines...

Be in a position to wipe any spot on the globe in minutes, or to precision strike even faster.

Bin laden compound? Gone. Troops on ground? -0-

(although I completely dig the personal nature of that particular strike)

(guarantee you some bigshots sleep nervously now)

edit on 21-1-2012 by rbnhd76 because: stoopid reednack caint speel chack cso wwel



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx
Honestly, few people truely care about the details at this moment. Paul supporters generally seek for our government to be reformed on a fundamental level. Many Americans would rate their government as a top 5 threat to the future of our nation... Something is deeply wrong on the inside.

First priority is controlling our own nation, then we get back to being a good citizen of the world. One begets the other.


And we put it off while people who wish us harm arm themselves? Then we wait until the nuke us to respond? Hopefully someone will be around here to push the button!


Not the America I want to live in. How about defending the Paul strategy? Anyone?

I didn't think so!!





new topics
top topics
 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join