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

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:29 AM
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.



And there's the problem. Diplomacy and trade ARE intervention. Furthermore, without a military backup, they are intervention from a weak position, and as such are a recipe for disaster. If you take the military out of the equation, better take the rest out, too, or else bend over and loosen your belt, to get ready for a shellacking.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You can't drop something that hasn't even been fully implemented.

There's no logic whatsoever in this thread.

After all, who needs affordable healthcare when you can just send gullible young men/women off to die in needless conflicts?
edit on 22-1-2012 by The Sword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by seabag
 


Actually, the whole Vietnam debacle was avoidable. I just don't buy the conventional explanation for that conflict.

Otherwise, carry on with your sanitized, homogenized version of world events circa WWII.


ANY conflict is avoidable - all you have to do is roll over and let them take whatever they demand, sell out your friends and stab them in the back as you walk away. Easy peasy.

It's even easier if you don't make any friends to betray to begin with.

That calls for isolationism, both militarily and economically.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


"Affordable health care" my ass. Let me know if they ever develop a plan for that.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Reply to post by nenothtu
 


True. It was compromised by the insurance lobby.

Still, I hope most are opposing it due to this and not just because they hate Obama, fear "socialism", etc.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Well what I said is true, we've suffered a tremendous amount of "blowback" in the past 20 years, yes?

You're essentially stating someone always has to take up the mantel of the world's police and bully because that's just "how it is". My argument is that as a species we're moving beyond that through the instant forms of global communication and transportation that have been established over the last 100 years.

There might be an adjustment period with a few smaller nations going to war of bits of land, and that's fine by me -- the world may have to intervene in those -- but in the long-term as the internet-savy of the world become older and more humans become born into the world of information and communication sharing that the younger generations utilize, we will see a more consistent shift towards a one-world government based upon this global consciousness.

Anonymous is a prime example of a first-generation collective consciousness and this is a trend that will continue to grow as we remove the stereotypes that have been utilized to dehumanize each other for 1,000's of years. Humanity is quickly learning that the rest of the world is full of... humans... too.

It's a proven fact that due to the exponential growth of information in recent years that you'll be exposed to 10x more information than your parents were, and likewise your children are going to be exposed to 10x more information than you are. While there's every possibility of information overload occurring there will also be the byproduct of a populous which is incredibly informed, instantly, to every world-event and be able to react instantly.

As per your whole "if we bring everyone home then when SHTF somewhere we'll be that much later to the party". The Navy would really be the only branch of the service that needs to be in international waters to be ready for this type of scenario. The rest of the military could be deployed anywhere in the world within 72 hours if the proper protocols were developed and practiced to achieve that goal.

In a way having a constant policing force of the world is quite detremental to humanity because it's being a constant block to the growing pains of a global culture. People will have disagreements and fight over them, but only when we're able to emerge from those fights with a deeper understanding of each other, that we will move beyond our current "status-quo".
edit on 22-1-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
Reply to post by nenothtu
 


True. It was compromised by the insurance lobby.

Still, I hope most are opposing it due to this and not just because they hate Obama, fear "socialism", etc.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



That's exactly why I oppose it - the "individual mandate" provision seems to me to be tailor made to guarantee insurance companies a cash cow, at my expense. Remove that, and don't force me into government clinics (or any other clinics, for that matter) as an alternative, and I think I'm good. I'll look out for myself, and neither need nor want government "healthcare" or forced purchasing of insurance. What the rest of you do isn't my concern.

I mean, seriously - it's MY health, and I'll look out for it or ignore it as I see fit.


edit on 2012/1/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Think about this. If EVERYONE voted for Ron Paul,just on Foreign Policy,and if likely WW3 broke out in the world,HOW would we be ANYWHERE near to stop it,if every base was closed,all our troops sitting at home,and would ANYONE want war,if they voted to bring everyone home,with Ron Pauls Foreign Policy??



The biggest flaw I see in Paul's policy is that he wants to retain diplomatic and economic relations, and at the same time cripple the military. This means that the US would still have "national interests" overseas, because of the diplomacy and trade, but no means of defending those interests when (not if) they ere endangered, and they most certainly would be,

Both or none. If you want to pull out the bases, pull out the diplomats and trade, too. Any foreign nation that didn't want to abide by that could go on their merry way, and expect nothing at all, neither hurt nor help, from the US.

US policy should be in US interests, and the rest of the world can look after itself.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

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??


No it's called mutual destruction something you obviously don't understand. lol No those countries didn't fear us they just knew we were actually stupid enough to use the bomb. Has Iran attacked the US? Maybe you try coming up with a good reason and some proof Iran is trying to build the bomb. Something besides the usual Zionist propaganda. Instead of your usual servitude to Israel maybe you should be asking yourself why is my country throwing away our own intel on Iran so we can listen to Israel?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
I wouldnt have ANY problem with Ron Paul bringing the troops home. We could protect our borders,our ports,dump the TSA,and stick actual National Guard,that belong in our States,at the airports. Better trained also..But..............................................The World, in less then a year would come asking for help.Some wannabe SuperPower ,with a rush of Nationalistic Pride,and lust for forgotten territory's would pop up,to threaten the World. Japan would have no choice but to rearm. North Korea,and the Chinese would walk into the Asian country's,they believe are theirs.Really,I have thought about it. There would be no more calling America Warmongers,although,I believe blame would be held against America for not helping. And then..We stay out of it.We let those country's go at it.Because America doesn't need the grief,of lost men and women dying to help the World.We stay diplomatic,continue free trade.Jews die? So be it. Muslims die? So be it. Not our fight. Hell,keep the missiles,we gave you. Keep the bases,the arms. We will leave it all for the country's we walk out on.


But that wouldn't be American,right?

MHO/Rant


edit on 22-1-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


If you know anything about the founding fathers then you would know that it would be the American way. They believed America should have no allies and trade and have diplomacy with all nations. Why should America care if the ME kills each other off?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Well what I said is true, we've suffered a tremendous amount of "blowback" in the past 20 years, yes?



What are you considering to be "blowback", and why?



You're essentially stating someone always has to take up the mantel of the world's police and bully because that's just "how it is". My argument is that as a species we're moving beyond that through the instant forms of global communication and transportation that have been established over the last 100 years.


Communication and transportation do not obviate war, they facilitate it.



There might be an adjustment period with a few smaller nations going to war of bits of land, and that's fine by me -- the world may have to intervene in those --


Why? Why should "the world" intervene in someone else's fight, intervene in private problems?



but in the long-term as the internet-savy of the world become older and more humans become born into the world of information and communication sharing that the younger generations utilize, we will see a more consistent shift towards a one-world government based upon this global consciousness.


A One-World Government is something I will always oppose, as will my children. With any luck and decent education, so will their children, and grandchildren after that. If that's what you have in mind, you have a rough road ahead. We'll fight it at every turn. Such a government is far too dangerous and ultimately divisive.



Anonymous is a prime example of a first-generation collective consciousness


Oh. If it's not any more effective or dangerous than Anon, I guess we really have nothing to worry about. Let the NWO do a DDoS oof this website or that for a day or two at a time, and the rest of us will be chugging right along without those sites. We managed before they ever existed, and can manage after they're gone.



and this is a trend that will continue to grow as we remove the stereotypes that have been utilized to dehumanize each other for 1,000's of years. Humanity is quickly learning that the rest of the world is full of... humans... too.


Bingo! That is precisely why a One World Government will never work. The world is chock full of humans, each an individual. There are a plethora of cultures and philosophies. There is no such critter as a "one size fits all" government.



It's a proven fact that due to the exponential growth of information in recent years that you'll be exposed to 10x more information than your parents were, and likewise your children are going to be exposed to 10x more information than you are. While there's every possibility of information overload occurring there will also be the byproduct of a populous which is incredibly informed, instantly, to every world-event and be able to react instantly.


"Reacting instantly" implies an ability to react. Merely being informed may give reason to react, but it in no way provides ability to react.



As per your whole "if we bring everyone home then when SHTF somewhere we'll be that much later to the party". The Navy would really be the only branch of the service that needs to be in international waters to be ready for this type of scenario. The rest of the military could be deployed anywhere in the world within 72 hours if the proper protocols were developed and practiced to achieve that goal.


Impossible without FOB's and staging areas. Even with them, you can only get a very small force in play in a 72 hour time frame. That small force can be wiped from the face of the earth in quite a lot less time than the 72 hours it took to get it there with no possibility for reinforcement, backup, or supply. This is why we always see "build-ups" prior to any sort of large scale action. It takes more than 72 hours to get a naval contingent on the scene unless they are already in the vicinity - i.e. were already expecting trouble there.



In a way having a constant policing force of the world is quite detremental to humanity because it's being a constant block to the growing pains of a global culture. People will have disagreements and fight over them, but only when we're able to emerge from those fights with a deeper understanding of each other, that we will move beyond our current "status-quo".


Blocking "the growing pains of a global culture" is not detrimental to humanity. Diversity enhances the chance that humanity will survive. Who do you propose runs this "global culture"? How will you feel when it is co-opted by the Next Great Fascist regime, and the central control for the entire world is already in place, courtesy of the Globalist Utopia Dreamers Society (Inc,)?


edit on 2012/1/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

No it's called mutual destruction something you obviously don't understand. lol No those countries didn't fear us they just knew we were actually stupid enough to use the bomb.


They "knew we were stupid enough to use the bomb", and didn't feel like getting themselves all blown up? Sounds a lot like "fear" to me! I think the potential is high that it is YOU who do not understand "Mutual Assured Destruction".



Has Iran attacked the US? Maybe you try coming up with a good reason and some proof Iran is trying to build the bomb. Something besides the usual Zionist propaganda. Instead of your usual servitude to Israel maybe you should be asking yourself why is my country throwing away our own intel on Iran so we can listen to Israel?


Sure - as soon as you step out from behind the usual "zionist boogey man" smoke screen, employed by those who have no logic to back their arguments.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

If you know anything about the founding fathers then you would know that it would be the American way. They believed America should have no allies and trade and have diplomacy with all nations. Why should America care if the ME kills each other off?


That is incorrect. I don't recall any of the Founding Fathers turning up their noses at an alliance with France and aid from Spain when they were fighting the Revolution.

As a matter of fact, Franklin (one of those Founding Fathers - check a history book) spent a great deal of time building the alliance with France.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


We respond in hours because we have those bases. the world is still a big place my friend, no matter how much twitter and Facebook bring us closer. it takes weeks for an aircraft carrier to make it to the other side of the world.

a fighter flying at mach 1 the whole way from the U.S. to where ever will have to be refueled numerous times before it even got to its destination.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by XelNaga
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.


Um... yes you kinda proved the Op's point. we were already isolated, we weren't involved in any way.. yet we were still provoked.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

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


And supposed everyone is wrong about the Iranian Bomb timeline and in 2 weeks we wake up to the news that a lot of Israelis who just wanted to have a home and a place to work were just turned to glass..what should we do then?

and please try not to compare this scenario with Hiroshima and Nagasaki



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by seabag
 


What makes you believe that humanity hasn't progressed in the last 100 years, and is giving you cause to base your entire argument on? We have advanced tremendously from then. Back then you went to the theater once a month to get your political news (propaganda) and people were extremely ignorant about the world outside of their country. Today we have instantaneous world-wide communication, and even a growing global consciousness due to these advancements. Why would the bulk of humanity even want to participate in World War III?


We may have all these advances in the last 100 years. but the one thing that remains constant, is human nature.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". Greed and envy have their part to play.. haves and have nots and all that.

In other words... Human nature is to want what others have, and sometimes no cost is too high to achieve what others have for some people.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Sorry I quit reading you post when you started claiming Ron Paul wants to be an isolationist nation.

That shows me you either don't understand his foreign policy at all or just regurgitate what you hear from others.

It has nothing to do with isolating the USA. It's about not sticking our noses where it's not wanted or needed!

If they ask for help we'll help them and if military action is needed AND congress approves it then we will go.

It's about having hundreds of bases in 130 counties, telling them how to run their country when they don't want us there.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
First off, the world is a very different place to what it was back in the days of the world wars, for starters we have the UN. Now, even though the UN is more of a institutional branch used to push forward US interests, it also brings countries together to fight a common cause if another Nazi scenario happens, I know many people may mention the League of Nations, but we've seen and learnt from that mistake before. No one would stand for what happened in the build up of WW2.

Secondly, the word US interests translates to what is in the interest of US development and growth, and that boils down to one thing, resources. The same as ever. The difference now is that resources are becoming scarce, so the US needs to protect their oil supply, aka build bases surrounding their oil supply to prevent any outside nation to intervene, and if the oil trade is threatened by the country itself, military intervention will happen (Iraq, Libya, the surrounding of Iran).

Now, a reason politicians will think it is dangerous to leave the Middle East. The Mid East is beginning to join together, instead of being separated by regimes ruling their countries for the interest of the US, they are backfiring and using the funding/trade deals to make their own country stronger, and if enough of the middle east do this, then there will be a threat to US oil deals that they put in place when they put certain people in power of certain countries (once again, Iraq, Libya). This is why we have seen NATO intervention in the Arab springs. This is also the reason why they are watching Egypt with a close eye. The last thing that is in US interests is a Egypt ruled by an Islamic government (ones such as Iran), for if more countries where to follow, they could all join forces against the US interest and sell oil at their own price, for their own interests. If this happens, the UAE will grow stronger, and the US worry that this could be, at the current climate and power with oil, a growing super power. The next generations Soviet Union if you will, and the battle for super power supremacy could very well follow.

I see proof in this by the way that the US don't tend to use their own oil supply, with mass amounts of oil fields in Alaska left untapped. If the US use and control the oil in the middle east, then it keeps the possibility of the UAE getting stronger and developing into a super power/union with strong anti-american views.

I can understand both points, but the fact is that it is in US interests, not the worlds. So it is understandable why some Americans feel that Paul's policy is dangerous, because it potentially can be for the US, but for other countries it is beneficial.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Let me start by saying, OP I admire you taking a stand and defending your beliefs. That is admirable and for that you have my respect. More people should be able to do it.

Thank you, sir. 


Unfortunately I feel like you rewrote history a bit and I disagree with a majority of your post. I really dont have time to break it all down, Im at work right now, but you can expect my full reply tomorrow.


I fit 100 years of history into 2 posts...there are some blanks for sure. However, I don't feel that I rewrote history. I look forward to your reply tomorrow. After your history revision please tell me how RP's policy is going to make me safer.


I realize you had limited space and time to make your point, but you did make it. You expressed yourself and your position clearly and respectfully. I appreciate that, even though I disagree. I just got home from work and I am wiped out at the moment due to my professional life, as well as my personal life. You will get my response and I look forward to debating this issue with you in a polite and courteous manner.

Be well my friend, and we will discuss this further when I wake up from some much needed and long awaited rest.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join