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

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there is a middle gound betrween isolationism and "world police"

I would like to see the US move more towards the middle myself

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

History has proven isolationism doesn’t work.

Obviously nobody on ATS can make a cogent argument in defense of RP’s foreign policy.

Originally posted by nenothtu

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.

Originally posted by nenothtu

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.

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

Washington's public political address warned against foreign influence in domestic affairs and American meddling in European affairs. He warned against bitter partisanship in domestic politics and called for men to move beyond partisanship and serve the common good. He warned against "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", saying the United States must concentrate primarily on American interests. He counseled friendship and commerce with all nations, but warned against involvement in European wars and entering into long-term "entangling" alliances. The address quickly set American values regarding foreign affairs.

I would like to challenge your premise that "The US has tried [non-interventionism] before…and it led to incredible loss of life." Is your contention that, had the US gotten involved in the World Wars earlier, not as many Americans would have died? If so, I would argue that no evidence was provided to backup this position. Observations were cited, such as: 

1. President Wilson had a non-interventionist foreign policy 
2. the US remained neutral until our commercial shipping was threatened 
3. there was a push for disarmament after WW1 

On points 1 and 2, no case was made as to how exactly these things led to any more US deaths than there would have been otherwise.

On point 3, the mention of US/Britain/Japan disarmament treaties was woven together with Germany trying to take over the world, as if implying one directly led to the other, which is not the case. But the real point here is that Ron Paul is NOT advocating nuclear disarmament. I have never heard him say anything about it. In fact, recently he specifically mentioned the use of submarines (presumably with nuclear capabilities) as very "worthwhile" in helping to defend our country. Source: Politico

I would also like to make a point about isolationism vs non-interventionism, to illustrate why it's important to use them correctly as it relates to this and any other foreign policy discussion. During WW1, the US had a policy of non-interventionism, and we still got drawn into war. As was quoted in the OP, we supplied Britain with goods, Germany was trying to cut off their supplies, so they sunk our commercial ships. If we were isolationist, we wouldn't even have been trading with Britain, thus our ships wouldn't have been over there, so they wouldn't have been sunk, and there would have been no catalyst for us to have entered the war. (I'm not advocating isolationism, but I'm just trying to stress why it's important to make the distinction and use them appropriately.)

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.