Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Most of the US taxpayer dollars are spent domestically, and Obamacare is what is draggin down employment. Show me some facts about how war costs more than domestic policy! Good luck!!
edit on 21-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

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

I didn't think so!!

People have defended the Ron Paul strategy, reread your own thread.

You just haven't gotten the answer you wanted.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Defend closing 900 bases overseas and putting our homeland at risk through isolationism.

Good luck...



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Defend closing 900 bases overseas and putting our homeland at risk through isolationism.

Good luck...

Why does it have to be all or nothing.
I'll agree some of those bases should be kept open, they are needed. The strategic ones.

Maybe start off closing 700 of the 900, a compromise, happens in the real world all the time, it can happen in the military.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
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.


Ya!


Sounds logical...ignore history and America deserves it!


Read the thread then come back and defend RP's agenda....otherwise, don't vote for him in the primary.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Defend closing 900 bases overseas and putting our homeland at risk through isolationism.

Good luck...


As another poster already said Ron Paul's position has already been defended, but some people seem allergic to reason.

By the way, it's very telling of your mindset when you use words like HOMELAND, I seem to recall in history other tyrannical regimes extolling their people with phrases like motherland, and fatherland. Those failed ideologies have been ground into the dust of history... just like we will be if we don't return to the Constitution and abandon this neocon fascism and leftist socialism.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Defend closing 900 bases overseas and putting our homeland at risk through isolationism.

Good luck...

Why does it have to be all or nothing.
I'll agree some of those bases should be kept open, they are needed. The strategic ones.

Maybe start off closing 700 of the 900, a compromise, happens in the real world all the time, it can happen in the military.


Justify it based on history and facts. Why should we close any? Are they that costly? Will it make us safer? Prove it....cause RP hasn't proven anything. He sounds more like a typical liberal....cut the military to save money!


This isn't a joke. Dumb people vote. Tell me why I'm wrong.

Good luck!



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

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!!


Why didn't we attack Russia, China, and North Korea while they were arming themselves? Also they have no means of getting a bomb here.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Count Chocula

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Defend closing 900 bases overseas and putting our homeland at risk through isolationism.

Good luck...


As another poster already said Ron Paul's position has already been defended, but some people seem allergic to reason.

By the way, it's very telling of your mindset when you use words like HOMELAND, I seem to recall in history other tyrannical regimes extolling their people with phrases like motherland, and fatherland. Those failed ideologies have been ground into the dust of history... just like we will be if we don't return to the Constitution and abandon this neocon fascism and leftist socialism.


I never used the term "homeland" and nobody has defended RP's agenda yet. Where did I type that word?? You can't defend it....I didn't think so!


By the way...Newt won tonight in South Carolina. How does that make you feel!
edit on 21-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

Dear seabag,

Your opening post deserves more thoughtful replies than it has received, and I'm sorry for that. This could have been (may still be?) a forum for a serious foreign policy discussion. May I offer some thoughts?

One poster said

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.
This position would require us to be involved in at least three times the number of places we are now. Most of Africa would require our attention, the Middle East has a terrible record of human rights abuses, China, North Korea, we'd probably go into Mexico to protect the "nerds" that need defending from drug cartels. I understand that the death rate of civilians in Chihuahua (a Mexican state) is at least six times that in Afghanistan.

"But we can make do with diplomacy" We have seen what diplomacy did for Mubarak, Gadahfi, Ahmadinejad, Hussein. Diplomacy must have the option of teeth, just as the police must have the option of firearms. Shall we fight genocide or protect our national interests through the UN? The question answers itself.

And what do we do for bases that are needed for intelligence gathering, drone launches, special ops, supply depots, and peace keeping in areas such as Korea? Do we get rid of our naval bases, requiring our ships to go out then come back quickly for fuel or supplies?

Is all our fighting to be conducted by drones launched from Colorado? They won't be interfered with by other countries and captured, will they? Of course they don't have the necessary range, either, but that's ok, all the troublesome countries are close.

Speaking about close, how close do we let trouble come? Iran is making deals with Venezuela, should we let South America go radical Muslim with no attention on our part? How about if China takes Taiwan and moves into South Korea and the rest of Asia? And if Russia takes Europe is our answer diplomacy, but nothing else because we don't want foreign entanglements like NATO?

The world is a bar without rules. It needs a bouncer or two. It's best to stop trouble early and far away.

I don't know if any of the above makes sense, but you've launched an important discussion and we need more than bumper sticker slogans.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 



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.


Your post did nothing to defend the RP strategy. Your post is an EPIC FAIL!


If your enemy stood in your backyard with a gun you would fear him more than if he was an hour away, would you not??

Lame defense, sir!


Come back with REAL information and stats.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Why didn't we attack Russia, China, and North Korea while they were arming themselves? Also they have no means of getting a bomb here.


Uhm...the question IS....why didn't they attack us? The answer is...because they FEARED us. You are looking at it backwards.

Defend RP already...I'm getting tired of waiting!


Can't defend the indefensible??



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


....." When a war with Iran breaks out let me know. Until then it's all FEAR mongering.. "


If a War breaks out between the U.S. and it's Allies against Iran , it will happen only because the U.S. will Start it by being the Aggressor and using provocatation and and intimidation to Force Iran to Defend itself Militarilly . The American People will Not Except such a Situation as that and Will Protest strongly to the Federal Goverment who if you happened to have forgotten, works for Them ..........

edit on 21-1-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Defend RP already...I'm getting tired of waiting!


Can't defend the indefensible??

Asked and answered many times.

I think your just looking for another 40 page , flag waving thread.

Emoticons are a sign of no arguement, you are quite liberal with them this thread.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Well, a couple of thoughts:

Note: I am Ron Paul supporter but I don't agree with every last detail although I feel he raises interesting points worthy of real debate.

Regarding foreign policy specifically, history has repeatedly shown that empires collapse due to over expansion. The Roman Empire is a prime example and Greece before it.

Are we (the USA) near that point? I don't know. If we have 900 bases around the world, I'd rather see the less strategic ones closed and the money reallocated to either military R&D and/or domestic projects that would add real long term value (not money pits like welfare). As far as 'strategic' goes -- I'll leave that undefined for the purposes of this conversation.

My main concern right now regarding our national security is our economy, and second to that, natural resources - primarily energy. China is certainly thinking big and planning for the long term, aka the Amazon approach. How will we deal with that when the time comes? Will we be able to do so?

Lastly, Sun Tzu - arguably one of the best military geniuses - believe that war was the last resort preferring economic sabotage from within as a better means of winning.

Machiavelli also cautioned against building fortresses and hiding behind walls opting instead for open communication and a Ron Paul like neutrality that would allow a sovereign nation to be friends with all and enemies to none thereby allowing such nation to gain both allegiances while avoiding, again in a very Ron Paul fashion, foreign entanglements.

It seems to me that histories best would agree with Ron Paul in his strategy.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


AND...

In the meantime it's all speculation, innuendo and FEAR mongering. I know emotions run high on this topic but let's keep it in the here and now.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



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.


There were NO US BASES in Germany or anywhere in Europe before WW1 or WW2. What threat did we pose then? NONE! So why then were we attacked drawn in?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Let me know when the US faces aggression that must be dealt with, then I will consider "isolationism" a bad idea. Let's look at recent history.

OEF: Ten year war started to seek out one man hiding in caves, ongoing with no end in sight. Afghanistan now in top three nations riddled with Terrorism. Was not the case before US invasion, costs our country money we do not have and blood we ought not give up, and for what? We lost about 2,977 lives in 9/11, and in response went and lost an additional 2,876 (and counting) coalition forces there, debt continues to climb. Lose/lose.

Oh by the way, we finally caught that man, but we aren't going to show you any proof of the fact to bring any sort of closure to anyone.

Same deal with OIF, started based on false intelligence that proved to not be true, also now one of the top three nations in the world riddled with Terrorism (you know, the real kind, where people kill each other with car bombs in city centers weekly?), arguably was not before we got there. Let's not even get into how many lives lost there, ours or theirs. More lose lose, more debt. No one has won.

And here we are today, more weapons of mass distraction being deployed by the government. Iran is a threat, they are delving into nuclear technology, may even be making a weapon (which we have no proof of) and just so happen to not like the US because of our meddling affairs since the 1950s. They must be stopped, because preemptive has proven to be worth it so far.

Along comes ol' crazy uncle Paul, who sees it for what it is, a farce we can't afford much longer, and calls it like he sees it.

Closing bases on the other side of the world, and bringing those troops back home to the confines of our own borders will make us less safe... How? Losing some of my buddies to IEDs in Iraq has made America safer, how?

It hasn't.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You do realize thats why Rome fell right? They stretched their military way too far, just like England. They stretched too far and under estimated a peasant revolution and look what happened, Its their fault America exists in the first place



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well , the " Here and Now " is showing the whole World that the * "Present United States Goverment" has Lost it's way by Irrationally Rejecting the Very Principles that as a Nation it was founded on and instead is now turning to a Facists Dictatorship headed by an Elected Head of State who has taken it upon himself to Abuse the Powers that We The People Intrusted to him . Whatever happened to Truth , Justice , and the American Way ?





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join