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

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!!

Hmm I am pretty sure that you are aware that the US of A is consistently and constantly monitoring every country in the world for miltarry/political/economical/humaniterain/environmental activity.

And we also opreate many MANY clandestine operations using non-military entities to handle such things.

You are aware of this yes??

not withstanding the points you made; after each conflict and compression of america back unto itself during world war one and two, occurred the most violent times for any minority in america. "americans" and their xenophobias; under isolationism is not anything virtuous. and the crazy thing is that the government perpetrated most of the incidents; in okc: the first okc bombing, the red summer of the "roaring 20's", the internment camps from as close to me near the mississippi to as far west as california leading up to the 1940s,and the use of national guard and other government funded personnel in the 50 60s and 70s during the civil rights movement.

everyone says ron pauls not racist but i dunno man he smells like a fish.

the points you make in your op are valid and i think someone who can be a doctor and study law must know that american troops of the 2k generation are not fit to be housed within the same borders as american citizens under the current pretenses of americas domestic stature. yet, and still: that not pertaining his foreign policy; eradicating the ability for americans to learn how to know someone they cant know by checking their email or being an mp somewhere on some base or driving a child to a soccer game, is a great tragedy for american culture.

i think the more virtuous aspects of your post applauding the necessities of force and proper use of strength show a reasoning with wisdom, and that comprehension of ones own strength and the ability to use ones own power is always necessary and the reason that some persons are blessed and talented to have a skill or talent or strength or weakness in the eye of the discerning tyrant.

reply to post by seabag

You site all this disarmament rubbish.

But really the US was planning an attack on the UK before Hitler rose up and became a force to be reckoned with...

War Plan Red-America planned to attack UK!

reply to post by seabag


i agree with you in how the us chose to help other nations in the past but the government got greedy theres now way around that we got greedy and decided to "help" nations by secretly carrying out plans to take down regimes just so we could get paid i.e libya,syria and the rest of the middle east.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Count Chocula

 

So there is no confusion Count, I actually like many things Dr Paul has to say. Not all. There is the difference. When a war with Iran breaks out let me know. Until then it's all FEAR mongering..

What?

Now I'm supposed to defend Rush?
The guy is an ASS.

Good try though.

PEACE

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

This argument is incredibly weak.

So talking about the threat of war with Iran is "fear mongering"? Meaning we shouldn't talk about how we shouldn't go to war with Iran until after we have gone to war with Iran, because until then we are just spreading fear. Right?

Yeah that makes sense ...

In the meantime the chicken hawks can continue to engage in real FEAR mongering that Iran is a threat and needs to be dealt with.

Your logic ...

I take it by the last word of your post that you really don't want a war with Iran? Then maybe you should talk more about how we should avoid one ....

some headlines for today ...

European Union agrees on Iran oil embargo

Iran 'definitely' closing Strait of Hormuz over EU oil embargo

Britain, US and France send warships through Strait of Hormuz

But me saying a war with Iran is a very real possibility is just fear mongering. Also me saying that we shouldn't start another war is just more fear mongering. I should just sit back quietly with my head in the sand?

Maybe you should get your head out of the sand

or

I could just tap you on the shoulder after it starts?

Sounds like my kind of president....War veteran not hellbent on war....Whats your problem with that again?

Originally posted by seabag

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?

I couldnt find anyone who answered your question so im going to. The US kept selling the allies weapons during the war, Germany got mad and told us to stop, we liked the money so we didnt, they destroyed a bunch of merchant ships and drew us into the war.

We meddled in their affair so we paid the price, kind of like today.


But onto my thoughts. The rest of the world can take care of itself, the battlefield today is not what it was 100 years ago. China could go and conquer countries and Iran can build nukes, should that scare us? Not really, we dwarf them technologically (with our "old" tech that they let us see and the troops use) so troop numbers dont matter much anymore, and dont think for a second that if they invaded our soil and made our commanders feel we were in a losing fight, that we wouldnt turn the whole world into a sheet of glass in retaliation.

Also all those duties to keep countries in check are supposed to be NATOs job as a whole, not just the US like it seems to be today.

And how come nobody talks about the REAL current threat that's right next door. Where you say? Take a look at Mexico, yea the MSM doesnt like to talk about that dirty little secret much.

reply to post by seabag


As I said previously, I feel you rewrote history a bit. So first let us get a couple things out of the way. We should define two terms, "Isolationism" and "Non Intervention"

Isolationism is defined as

the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

Non Interventionism is defined as

abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.

You begin by making a case that the US practiced a policy of Isolationism when in fact that is not true at all. For a country to be "isolationist" it would not even be trading with other Countries and the US has been trading since it's birth.

For most of our history we practiced a policy of Non Intervention. One could argue that we were isolationist during the 1930's, but that would be the only time period that we could accurately call an Isolationist period. When discussing an Isolationist policy you said,

Having established a unique representative democracy after defeating the British Empire, US wanted nothing to do (militarily) with the rest of the world (much like Ron Paul and Paulites wish today)

Here I find your choice of words interesting. You make a distinct connection about military involvement, or lack of, as the defining characteristic of Isolationism. We shouldn't want to be involved Militarily with other nations for the exception of training. When we, through agreements and treaties, marry our Military to another Country then that Country's enemies become our enemies even though the "enemy" has done nothing to us nor threatened us in any way.

Your post then goes on to cite Wilson's declaration of neutrality. Which again, being Neutral and being Isolationist are two completely different things. Neutral is defined as (in this context) as

1. not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others
2. not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy

Why should we pick sides or assist one waring nation over another? Instead we should be diplomatically trying to resolve these issues. That is how one becomes a peacemaker. You can not achieve peace through force and history has shown us this time and time again. Look how well peace through force is working out for Israel.

Your post then goes on to say, when using WW1 as an example,

Originally posted by seabag
US were eventually drawn into this conflict because American interests and the lives of the US citizens were jeopardized.

And that is the reason why a Country should go to War. That is called defense. The US in 1917 was very much under attack. Our reasons for entering into WW1 started in 1916 with the event at Black Tom in New Jersey and the Kingsland event in New Jersey.
Black Tom Explosion
Kingsland explosion
Congress eventually declared war in 1917 after German subs sank 7 Merchant Ships. However, while the US officially was declared "Neutral" the fact is we were not. We were aiding the Allies in WW1 even though we were not actually fighting. It was that aid that lead to us being attacked.

Fact is, the majority of your post is all about an Isolationist result of Foreign Policy and Ron Paul believes in a policy of Non Intervention. We have established that these are two completely separate things and that really negates every point you have made. I do agree that isolationism does not work, but Ron Paul is not suggesting Isolating the US from the world stage. We no longer need to have our Military in bases in other parts of the world. Technology has advanced since the 1940's. Fact is, the US has the capability to strike anywhere on the globe in an hour. We can have boots on the ground, anywhere on the globe with 48 hours and we do not need to have bases in other countries to do it. Some of the bases we occupy makes no sense at all, Cuba is a perfect example. We have no diplomatic relations with Cuba. We have sanctions and a trade embargo with Cuba. Yet we lease Guantanamo Bay due to the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903, and we even break the terms of the treaty. The Cubans do not want us there and the treaty states that the US will recognize the Republic of Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over the area. How does this make sense?

We have 50,000 troops in Germany, why? There is no threat. We have 12,000 in Italy. Why? We occupy Japan. Why? We are not protecting Japan. It was Japan that invaded China, not the other way around.

reply to post by seabag


Ron Paul's foreign policy is no better or worse in terms of "national defense" than any other presidents'. The reason being is that the banking elite decide where and when wars will be fought as they profit immensely from funding both sides. You refer to WWI and WWII, both of which the US wanted to stay out of. We were drug into those wars b/c TPTB needed to cash in on both sides. The sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor were both designed to get the US involved (the latter obviously more dramatic than the former). Popular US sentiment still leaned towards staying out of WWI after the Lusitania, but eventually the propaganda machine swayed the minds. Bringing in the US "balanced" the playing field and the wars were extended. The more evenly matched the two sides of the war, the more money for the banks. Without the US involvement, Germany would have dominated (which the banks knew) and they would have missed out on a big "opportunity" to cash in. Two evenly matched sides fighting for years to a stalemate = $$$ for the banking elite!! War is profitable.

So, arguing about a President's foreign policy is pointless, as once they are in office, I fully believe that they don't call the shots. However, in terms of our economy, closing bases and bringing troops home is the way to go. I don't think RP has ever suggested closing all 900 bases around the world. His point, as I interpret it, is that 900 is excessive and money and resources could and should be spent much more efficiently (and at home) as far as military and defense spending goes. Being smaller and more efficient does not mean being weaker.

Something you seemed to have missed, especially WW2 and as you want to call it isolationism, Its called UNITY of the people. To unite and come together, where all pitched in to fight and win a war.

There is no unity of the people now or any more money to fight endless wars or a will of the people to fight endless wars, sure certain government and corporations have plenty of will to keep this going and to line there pockets.

As Yamamoto said "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant" and that's how this country must meant to be and should be until we need to call to arms and defend our nation.

This country had the respect of the world, we longer have any respect we are a laughing stock and viewed as weak. no matter the size of our military.

When the USA started wars or joined in a war not to win it but to make money for a certain few. that was our down fall. We have become the boy who cried wolf, nobody cares anymore.

If we are going to fight a war , then fight it to win , no PC crying about loses or the poor people in that country are getting killed and we bombed and everything is flattened, WAR IS UGLY. If we are at war then they are our enemy, you wipe them out and send them back to the stone age, its war not a game. so win it. stop wasting our men and women's lives for profit.

You have proved nothing to me with your post except you are one of the ones who thrive on unjustified wars and brain washed notion of the lunacy of unfounded war and wasteful spending. and if you want to go to war with Iran for example then we need full support of this nation and a good solid reason, but if we do, the only thing left in Iran should be a desert. that will send the rest of the world a message. don't" Tread On Me" or you will be erased.

With today's capability of the military we longer need to stationed in a location that causes more trouble then it stops. And if an Allie truly needs our help they would allow us to use their land for our base to launch attacks or for supplies and for the wounded. If its a war worth fighting.

Today the cost out weighs the need to have stationary bases all over the planet, i do see that we do need to have cooperation of countries to use their ports in peacetime and war time but that's it.

Its time we re-earn the worlds respect.

I've listened what all the candidates had to say or as most were told to say. And if you listen to Ron Paul, He wants to go through congress and have a vote before we declare war and not by-pass the constitution and he has been pretty consistent of what his message and what he stands for through the years.

I don't give a rats ass about any political party, I'am tired of these crooks and PC idiots selling us out and we need someone anyone to stop the madness don't care who it is.

We do need to keep our military technology ahead of everyone else's to keep us safe, with our troops home defending our borders not someone else's we would have the $ to keep our military up to date.

We have enough going on in this country to take care of and fix to bring this country back on track to its former glory, Time to let the world stand on its 2 feet by its self and to realize what this country means to them, before we give a red cent in aide to anybody. The USA has enough people here who need aide before any other country. Really what has any country done for us except take advantage of our generosity.

And if the world bangs on our door to start a fight then we come out with all guns blazing with the full cooperation of the people and congress with a declaration of war as one united country and kick their butts and show no mercy until they declare defeat and sign a surrender declaration.

Its at the point where, if we let this nation fail , We won't be able to help anybody let alone ourselves. the time has come to come home, close our doors to clean our house and rebuild this nation and prosper, Keep the American dream from turning into a nightmare we'll never wake from.

And as i see it the Nightmare is getting clearer and more real everyday.

reply to post by guitarist


Dude you just broke it down and I agree with your post 100%, shame i can only give ya one star.

reply to post by ker2010

@ ker2010 thanks

reply to post by buster2010

Ron Paul is not a isolationist he's a non interventionist there is a difference. And the US if we were to follow the wishes of the founding fathers would be following this system. In the United States, this foreign policy has been advocated at various times in the country's history, notably during the first century of U.S. history. George Washington, the first U.S. President, advised the country to avoid "foreign entanglements." Thomas Jefferson favored "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." John Quincy Adams wrote that the U.S. "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

By my definition of Isolationism he most certainly is, sir:

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

It’s funny to me that so many people simply say “he’s not an isolationist” and believe that somehow ends the argument or disproves my entire OP. It most certainly DOES NOT.

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.

We tried that prior to WW1 and WW2 and we got drawn in. We then faced a MUCH more formidable enemy. Had US operated bases overseas we could have ending things sooner with less loss of life. We’ve had bases there since that time….has there been another world war?? Must be a good deterrent then!

Originally posted by A-Dub

Originally posted by seabag

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?

I couldnt find anyone who answered your question so im going to. The US kept selling the allies weapons during the war, Germany got mad and told us to stop, we liked the money so we didnt, they destroyed a bunch of merchant ships and drew us into the war.

We meddled in their affair so we paid the price, kind of like today.

Not even close.

Germany declared war on the U.S. shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor with the hope that by forcing the U.S. into a second theater of war Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the U.S.S.R. and relieving the pressure on Germany's eastern front which was beginning to bog down (Google Stalingrad)

reply to post by Evil_Santa

The largest threat to American national security is the fact that we've been the world's bully for the last 60 years - contentiously - and the rest of the world is pissed off about it.

How did we provoke Germany or Japan before they attacked us? We weren’t meddling overseas prior to that?

World’s bully? If you feel that way then your view of history is limited to the past 10 years and doesn’t go beyond. Name one country that has liberated more people than US?

I think we should stop nation building too but I strongly believe we need military bases overseas FOR DEFENSE ONLY.

Originally posted by MegaMind
So talking about the threat of war with Iran is "fear mongering"? Meaning we shouldn't talk about how we shouldn't go to war with Iran until after we have gone to war with Iran, because until then we are just spreading fear. Right?

All the over the top Gloom and Doom talk [that is rampant here at ATS Sometimes] about WW-III is imo.

Yes.

Yeah that makes sense ...

I'm glad we agree.

In the meantime the chicken hawks can continue to engage in real FEAR mongering that Iran is a threat and needs to be dealt with.

Quote where I've ever said "Iran needs to be dealt with" then we'll discuss it.

I take it by the last word of your post that you really don't want a war with Iran? Then maybe you should talk more about how we should avoid one ....

Well for starters, let's stop with all the FEAR mongering and focus on the issues. Compromises comes to mind. Civil Discussion. Open mindedness on all sides perspectives etc etc etc.


Not so much self righteous pompous holier than though ridicule towards those who disagree on some of the aspects of said politicians views.

Maybe you should get your head out of the sand

or

I could just tap you on the shoulder after it starts?

Like I was saying......

reply to post by A-Dub

I couldnt find anyone who answered your question so im going to. The US kept selling the allies weapons during the war, Germany got mad and told us to stop, we liked the money so we didnt, they destroyed a bunch of merchant ships and drew us into the war.

We meddled in their affair so we paid the price, kind of like today.

The people who say RP is not an isolationist argue that we will still conduct business overseas we just won’t militarily intervene. Selling weapons to allies is commerce…not meddling.

So are you saying that any country that sells weapons to someone we don’t like (N. Korea sells to Iran) we should take them out because they are meddling in US affairs??

Weak Logic, sir. Does that make YOU a warmonger??

reply to post by TheTimeIsNow

Hmm I am pretty sure that you are aware that the US of A is consistently and constantly monitoring every country in the world for miltarry/political/economical/humaniterain/environmental activity.

Yes…obviously…as they are doing the same to US of A.

And we also opreate many MANY clandestine operations using non-military entities to handle such things.

You are aware of this yes??

That is the general assumption…yes.

The fact is that we will not be able to respond as fast to serious threats without overseas basis. There would be NO great deterrent to attack unless we have a response capability poised in their back yard. Not to mention the fact that we TRAIN with our ally’s military forces to ensure cohesiveness and military preparedness. How to we maintain these relationships if our troops are stationed in Texas or Arizona?

Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis and see what the fuss was about. Also research the strategic advantage bases overseas provide US. After that it might make more sense to you.

reply to post by seabag

How did we provoke Germany?Have you ever heard of the treaty of versailles?It even managed to bring Hitler to power.Of course Prescott bush helped a little also in that regard.We embargoed Japan from the material it needed to continue thier war with China.The american ambasitor(sp)told our government they were going to attack in November which went unheeded,The Austrailian govt. told FDR they were comming a week before which he ignored.
And as far as liberating people how would you explain the taking down of the democratic government of Iran and installing the Shah liberation since he was no better than Saddom Hussain?This is the kind of liberation our government is now up to.

reply to post 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. 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?

Mutually assured destruction has no affect on people who aspire to martyrdom! Do you think threatening the life of the kamikazes would have made them turn their planes around?

Naïve approach, sir! That’s’ a very naïve and idealistic way to look at the world.