It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I think that the post does a great job of expressing the misconception about Dr. Paul's foreign policy positions. He is very simply NOT AN ISOLATIONIST. He understands that the world has changed and that our nation can no longer afford and no longer needs to provide for the common defense of Japan, South Carolina and Northern Europe. We need to bring those troops home to better provide for our own national security.

He also believes that we should continue to be a strong ally to our friends, and most importantly he believes that if our government plans to initiate or respond to hostilities that it should follow the constitutional process required by law.

I'm sorry but I just can't view these concepts as radical, they seem so common sense to me that I worry that either by choice or by agenda so many people of chosen to diminish them.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   


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.
reply to post by Count Chocula
 


That's also a bunch of hogwash; when will you lot learn?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


...The US does not have 900 'bases' overseas...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

The way to stop a bully is through strength…period.




Yeah, and we (the United States) are the bully. You have proven the point that you are wrong, all in that statement. The reason people are aggressive to us, is because we are the ones bullying the world into accepting our ideals and our way of life, by force, not to mention killing millions of their citizens and taking their resources for ourselves. Your ideals don't apply in today's world. If the US would just leave other people and nations alone and focus on fixing our own problems for once, things would vastly improve in this country. Who in hell would attack a country whose entire military force stood in the homeland, protecting its borders? The answer is nobody.

And just for the record, WW2 resulted from a failed policy concerning Germany's reparations. It would have taken them DECADES to pay back the debt we piled on them. Amid a global economic crisis, they were left with nothing. Hitler took advantage of that, preying on the Germans' disparity, promising them a return to German Greatness. And he did, in a twisted way. If we would have just been reasonable and fair with Germany, it's hardly likely someone like Hitler could have manipulated the German people like he did.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LibertyCrazy
I think that the post does a great job of expressing the misconception about Dr. Paul's foreign policy positions. He is very simply NOT AN ISOLATIONIST. He understands that the world has changed and that our nation can no longer afford and no longer needs to provide for the common defense of Japan, South Carolina and Northern Europe. We need to bring those troops home to better provide for our own national security.

He also believes that we should continue to be a strong ally to our friends, and most importantly he believes that if our government plans to initiate or respond to hostilities that it should follow the constitutional process required by law.

I'm sorry but I just can't view these concepts as radical, they seem so common sense to me that I worry that either by choice or by agenda so many people of chosen to diminish them.


This is exactly right. All of these "wars" we have entered into have not been congressional declared wars like World War 1 & 2. They have technically been illegal.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I question the history of the United States foreign policy as outlined by the OP. I think it is quite superficial and makes one glaring and naive assumption and that is that the statements of America's leaders represent its true foreign policy. America's leaders, like leaders everywhere make statements to influence public opinion. Only actions really represent foreign policy, and in that regard America has never been neutral for longer than it took her to figure out which side to support, if need be, secretly and covertly.

I don't think Ron Paul, despite all of his statements will be able to seriously alter American foreign policy. American foreign policy is in essence the same as all government policy on all issues, i.e., to use military power where necessary to advance the agenda of the government in question.

It doesn't matter how bizarre or irrational, not to say insane, the agenda is. The fundamental policy is always the same. Ron Paul is not going to change it. Ron Paul's foreign policy statements are more like the statements of an accountant.

My understanding of what he is saying is that America cannot afford its current military posture.

Fundamental policy isn't discussed at all as far as I can see. Think of Ron Paul as being similar to a Gorbachev. He thinks that the country is going to go down the drain if it continues to spend on the military the way it does. He thinks the country is cracking at the seams.

The only foreign policy change being offered by Ron Paul, that I can see, is a change in stance. If Paul is elected America will still have its dukes up.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Hitler was wrong friend! Power lies not in attack but defense! Our enemies want to spread our resources thin just the same as they did with the Nazis! Thru nation building and conquest we invite war to our shores! We have far more enemies now than we had pre 911! Imagine if a war with Iran did indeed pull Russia and in turn China into the conflict! War most certainly would visit our shores and given how fragile our American way of life is we would quickly see millions starving in the streets!

There are powers in this world whom against we stand no chance of survival! Being prepared is one thing actively taunting those who hold the power to level our cities is something else entirely! Iraq and Afghanistan have had one purpose friend, and the only reason we are not on the ground in Iran is because Russia has said that an attack on Tehran would be considered the same as an attack on Moscow! We will not be marching on Iran without dire consequence!



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
As far as I can see Ron Paul is like a dad pulling into the mall with the kids in the back seat, who want to buy everything they see, and he has to lay down the law about what the family can actually afford.

Everyone else is like the medicated dad who doesn't want to spend all that dough but always winds up pulling out the credit card.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Count Chocula
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.


I wish I was articulate enough to have said this myself, I agree 100% and am on the same page.

I also believe the term 'Neocon" is apt.

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
But again, there's nothing to persuade or disuade you, it's late, I'm tired, I'm going to bed, good night...

PS I'm voting for Ron Paul..... and I'm a Vet.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
[mor]

Seabag,

You jump to quite a few assumptions there. That's unfortunate. Your perceptions of the years after WWII are noted.

There is a philosophical stance behind Mr. Pauls rhetoric. Lets see if we can analogize this for you.

Your neighbor. You and he practice different religions (relevant? maybe) and speak different languages. One day out of suspicion you eaves drop a conversation he is having with his family in broken english. You believe he is telling them he would like to see your neighbor gone. You take this to heart and are scared something dreadful may happen. So, one night you decide to enter his home and kill him. While your there you decided to take his propane tanks and change his personal reading materials and media library to something that matches more closely to your preferences and # his wife while your at it since he will no longer be around or need any of these things.

These actions are illegal under current law in the United States. You committed murder, trespassing, rape and theft which would undoubtedly land you in prison for life. At the least. Protecting a friend for many years against the perceived threat; how noble... Do you still feel justified and morally correct?

Now reverse the roles. You are the neighbor.

What shouldn't be done by an individual shouldn't be done by a group. No matter the size or moral prerogative.

Good luck.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

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.


When someone cannot make a point without invoking a "zionist" boogey man, a tooth fairy, or some other such fantasy, I have to assume they have no point to make, and are attempting to hide that fact behind a pall of smoke.

Carry on, then, and don't forget to check in the closet and under the bed for those zionists before you go to sleep at night.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Carry on, then, and don't forget to check in the closet and under the bed for those zionists before you go to sleep at night.


Call them what you want, Zionist, Israeli's, they are in the fore front of this, to not include them in the conversation is denial.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

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.


Don't get me wrong, I'm against most alliances as well. However, claiming that the founding fathers refused alliances is hogwash, as I clearly demonstrated, and your "refutation" here quoted verifies.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by buster2010

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.


Don't get me wrong, I'm against most alliances as well. However, claiming that the founding fathers refused alliances is hogwash, as I clearly demonstrated, and your "refutation" here quoted verifies.



I think that a young state, like a young virgin, should modestly stay at home, and wait the application of suitors for an alliance with her; and not run about offering her amity to all the world; and hazarding their refusal. Our virgin is a jolly one; and tho at present not very rich, will in time be a great fortune, and where she has a favorable predisposition, it seems to me well worth cultivating.~Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by nenothtu

Carry on, then, and don't forget to check in the closet and under the bed for those zionists before you go to sleep at night.


Call them what you want, Zionist, Israeli's, they are in the fore front of this, to not include them in the conversation is denial.


Of course they are.


I'm not sure how they're leading the charge from their hiding place under the bed.

I don't see a boogey man when I look at an Afghan.

I don't see a boogey man when I look at an Egyptian.

I don't see a boogey man when I look at a Venezuelan.

I don't see a boogey man when I look at a Chinese individual.

And I don't see a boogey man when I look at an Israeli.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 
Another talking ass.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

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



Well 9/11 is a recent event of Blowback, but there's differences in opinion on if it really was the cause or not. But let's go back further, the Iran embassy hostage situation, Iraq, World Trade Center bombings, Al-Queida, etc.




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



No, communication and transportation are tools. Humans facilitate war, and use these tools for their ends, just like humans can facilitate trade with the same tools.




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



Why should america intervene in someone else's fight?




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.



It's not so much a one-world government of a ruling elite/body, but a one-world idea that people unite under -- humanity. Got a problem with being humane to others? There can still be separate governing bodies that govern under the same idea(s), yes?




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.



I said first-generation. Kinda like the Model-T was a first generation automobile. Has ford evolved over their other generations?




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.



But there is something we can all agree upon, we're all human, and Maslo's heirachy of needs has a pretty good foundation on what 99% of us need to be content in life. I'd say there's a good place to start from.




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



You're right, proper logistics provides the ability but you seem to have an issue with reading comprehension because the next paragraph outlined the logistics of how-to provide a relatively (within 72 hours) instant ability to react. I'll leave that paragraph in this reply and bold the sentence so your attention is able to focus on it this time.




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.


So you agree with me that the Navy should remain in international waters. Cool.




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,)?



Information is the key to preventing this from happening. Humans are quite capable of taking care of theirselves and governing theirselves. With modern-day tools we can do this globally without a governing body -- look to the internet as a prime example of modern-day community governance. There's a million different sites, each with a unique set of rules, culture and communities. But! When something threatened the internet itself (SOPA/PIPA) did those groups not come together as a global community to fight?

You really didn't bring forth any legitimate arguments beyond the logistics issue - which is something that can be solved.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


so, ron paul is against wars so therefore he's "bad"?
rofl.
you obamanoids are #ing pathetic.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Count Chocula
 

When a war with Iran breaks out let me know.


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


please define "breaks out". lol.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join