Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
i read "history says no" and didnt care on reading further...



by that you would say history says YES to the foreign policy they do right now?

and no thats not right...history says NO to empires..




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LoonyConservative
 


" 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? :

You have to be Kidding here , Right ? Israel has over 300 Nuclear Weapons and would not Think Twice about using them First , if anyone gets turned to Glass it will be the Iranians . Typical Zionist Propaganda , the Israeli Goverment and Military suffer from an Over Active Imagination , the " Never Again Syndrome " has gotten to be a Tool of Control over their People to a point where they could Never Live in Peace with their Arab Neighbors . Israel does not need the Help of the U.S. to Fight it's Battles , they Fight them Everyday in their Paranoid Minds.......

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



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Really great and informative OP!


I'm certainly not going to defend Ron Paul's policies, but I can see how his plans could be dangerous.

I don't like being the world police and I would love to stop the wars and bring some troops home. But I don't like the drastic nature of what a Paul presidency would mean.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
We have no money. Understand?


Not only is there "no money" but you have to look up to see the hole we are (have been put) in.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
We have no money. Understand?


Maybe we should drop Obamacare!

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


The irony of this statement. listen. We are too broke to have the illusion of being free and safe

heads have to roll before anyone is actually free and safe.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 


The Whole World has become a Welfare State living off America's Dime . The U.S. will Destroy itself Repeating the same damn mistakes that caused the Fall of The Roman Empire, Overextending Themselves ........ Like my Sig says..........

Those who Forget The Mistakes Of The Past are Doomed To Repeat Them .............
edit on 22-1-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 

So I guess it boils down to:
If we mind our own business, and don't do things to piss people off, we'll get attacked.
Yet if we butt in on everbody's business, and generally piss everbody off, we'll be safe and secure.

Isn't this what Orwell called "doublethink"?
I'm not sure, it's been a while since I read that book.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
A few of these views may have been mentioned already, but deserve a rehash.
1) We are broke. For some odd reason, this 5 letter word has not sunk in to many Americans brains yet. We are heaping over $5 billion a day onto the national debt to keep the status quo churning along. This is insanity! Remember, the entire Soviet Union collapsed and disintergrated because of massive fiscal mismanagement. Countless other empires have collapsed for similar reasons. That the US has some kind of magical immunity against crushing debt is the belief of fools.

2) Tens of millions of Americans are on food stamps, and tens of millions more exist just above the threshold where they can qualify for welfare. We cannot ignore this situation and must get our priorities in order. Our cities and roads crumble. Our energy infrastructure erodes. Our education system is beyond broken, leaving our students with massive debt loads and few job opportunities to pay those loans off with. Sending billions to overseas destinations for anything from food to weapons to nation building projects while we pile on debt to do these things and further burdens our own civilisation, must come to an end pronto.

3) World cop has gotten us nowhere. No other nation on Earth has sacrificed more than we have to maintain order in a chaotic world, yet we are called imperialists, medlers in internal affairs, if not an enemy and threat to some nations. If we hang up the badge, chaos will increase in the world, but thats the way it goes. Our leaders over the decades have lead us into this situation, and frankly its again because of our fiscal ineptitude.

4). We would serve the world better from a foreign policy aspect by creating a United States Science Corp, absorbing the old NIH and other research institutes into a new center of advanced education, exploration and research, and declaring war against the true enemies of mankind; orgamisms too small to see with our own eyes yet which kill us in our millions every year. We need new Manhatten Projects to find the causes and cure of Alzheimers and cancers which causes unprecedented misery and threatens to bankrupt healthcare systems around the world. We need to crack the secrets of nature before our oil runs out. We need to find out just what gravity really is, how it works, and can it be manipulated or even tapped as an energy source. We need to get Helium3 harvistation back on the agenda. We need to finally conquer fusion technology. What better way to shine on the world stage than to be a true force for the advancement of humankind by solving our biggest problems. But we cant do anything at all if we are broke.

4)
edit on 22-1-2012 by fockewulf190 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
there is a middle gound betrween isolationism and "world police"

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



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


There is only one problem with your theory, none of the examples you provided compare or apply to what Ron Paul wants to do.

I would have to call you a lunatic if you think focusing ON YOUR OWN BORDERS is a bad idea.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by seabag

1 - The Korea and Vietnam wars were all about stopping the threat of communism.

No, the Korean war was all about NATO flexing its muscles for the first time, and Vietnam was a war that was meant to be "sustained and not won", a real winner for the military industrial complex.

2 - 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.

HA HA..i like REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY CAME TO BE..which means BLOWBACK...the shah of Iran in the 50's, SADDAM in Iraq and OSAMA and AL QAEDA in Afghanistan in the 80's, ALL products of the CIA messing with the world.

3 - If we did decide to ignore the new dangers in the world we would suffer many serious consequences.

The majority of problems you're having to face now are all home grown, and the consequences are just begining.

4 - Unstable, terroristic regimes will rise, creating regional war on a grand scale.

You mean like the US's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and what WILL happen with Iran, right??

5 - Weaker nations will be run over by stronger adversaries.

Did'nt that start after 9/11, Again Iraq, Afghanistan etc..

6 - International trade will be negatively affected, endangering the global economy.

It will be when the US puts economic sanction's on whoever does'nt agree it's foreign policy.

7 - The world’s oil supply will be cut off.

It will be when the US and Israel have finished with their agenda of domination of the middle east.

8 - Inevitably, one of these rogue nations will resort to nuclear warfare.

Which means, sadly, one of the nations who does'nt want to be invadaded for it's natural resources will try to defend itself with what it has.

9 - As history has demonstrated, bad things will inevitably follow when aggression and tyranny go un-checked.

Yes, ask anyone in Baghdad.

10 - There’s a big difference between having troops stationed overseas and policing the world. Tyranny and aggression cannot go un-checked.

Yes it can when it's in the name of defeating GLOBAL TERRORISM, right??

11 - 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.

Where the hell have you been lately...we're on the brink of WWIII and Ron Paul aint been elected yet, so, who's to blame ???
edit on 22-1-2012 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2012 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

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



You know , your right . We should be more like the Boy Scouts . Concentrate on taking care of Our Camp , but Always be Prepared to put out the Occasional Fire........



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




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


You are the one ignoring history, you misrepresented history in your OP as well.

If you refuse to accept history , you will be doomed to repeat it.

Regrettably, that is where we're heading as a planet

BTW That picture of you with your head in the sand sure put this thread over the TOP!
edit on 22-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




History has proven isolationism doesn’t work.


No it hasn't.

You don't even know what isolationism is because that's not what Ron Paul is doing.



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


There have been several valid points made in this thread.

Regrettably, none of them were made by you.

You misrepresented his policy in your OP and now you're getting slammed with facts and reality that you don't want to listen to. No matter how many smiley faces you throw into the thread it's not going to change the fact that you have been embarrassing yourself since the very first post in this thread.

Various members have provided answers to your question only to have you childishly respond with something along the lines of "stick to the OP" while accusing Ron Paul supporters being unable to defend his policy.

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



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

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.



So people that want to see the facts that Israel claim about Iran to be believed is living behind a smoke screen? How can you call the facts that people produce no logic? Iran building the bomb is just propaganda without proof to back it up.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

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


From George Washington's farewell address.


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.


Just because we were in a war doesn't mean we can't receive aid or have commerce with other nations. Starting a nation costs a lot of money and at that time France and Spain had the money also the love hate relationship between England and these countries help to get America both gold and weapons.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
War is an outmoded form of settling conflicts. We got Bin Laden with a black operations strike force. We can do this whenever we want, but you know why we don't?

Can't make much money that way.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Ron paul could be some peoples answer.
All this focus on him is great exposure.
Although he will never be elected by the mass
public his foreign policy is a moot point.
It doesnt really matter what paul thinks
now.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by evilod
 



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.


If the warnings were heeded and Hitler was taken on before he was able to go on his global rampage, do you not believe there would have been far fewer deaths? I bet the Jews would surely disagree. 


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 don't believe RP necessarily wants to disarm but he's made it clear he will turn his back on threats to the world. He will wait until US is attacked before asking for a declaration of war, much like after Pearl Harbor. IMO This means we could see a repeat of history should another Hitler arise. 


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.)


I believe you have a different definition of isolationism. It doesn't mean US would be cut off from the world. 


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.

Link



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
this response almost isn't even necessary, but the entire op argument is one big fallacy.

silly, silly, silly.






top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join