Failed US Foreign Policy? Is Ron Paul the Answer? History Says NO!, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:46 PM by seabag

reply to post by george215

How did we provoke Germany?Have you ever heard of the treaty of versailles?It even managed to bring Hitler to power.

I guess Germany can tell you it sucks to lose a war. When you want to stop getting your a@$ kicked you must agree to the terms of the A@$ kicker! The loser doesn't get to set the terms!

We embargoed Japan from the material it needed to continue thier war with China.

So are you saying RP would take no action (such as an embargo) in the interest of US? Interesting

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.

What country has liberated more people than US??

During the 20th century, Americans came to liberate Europe twice, during world wars started by Europeans. Half a million Americans died during those wars. During and after WW2, the U.S. provided huge aid programs to Europe (the Lend-Lease program and the Marshall Plan), with the U.K. being the only country to repay anything.

After WW2, a new threat to Europe emerged: a totalitarian, aggressive, imperialist Soviet Union. The U.S. shielded Western Europe, as well as many other countries, from the Soviet military. It saved South Korea from Kim Il-sung and continues to protect the ROK from the genocidal Pyongyang regime.

The U.S. has liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and Iraq from Saddam Hussein, a dictator who murdered a million of his own people. It has also helped dozens of nations stricken by economic crises or natural disasters, including the Indonesians, the Pakistanis, the Russians, the Mexicans, and the South Koreans.

The U.S. is the country which ended the genocide in the Balkans -- genocide about which Europe was utterly unable to do anything.

link

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 02:59 PM by seabag

reply to post by MrWendal

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.

Your definition of isolation is inaccurate and America MOST CERTAINLY practiced isolationism in the past as I’ve cited. Here is the definition for the third and final time.

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.

Germany's unfettered submarine warfare against American ships during World War I provoked the U.S. into abandoning the neutrality it had upheld for so many years. The country's resultant participation in World War I against the Central Powers marked its first major departure from isolationist policy.

The year 1940 signaled a final turning point for isolationism. German military successes in Europe and the Battle of Britain prompted nationwide American rethinking about its posture toward the war. If Germany and Italy established hegemony in Europe and Africa, and Japan swept East Asia, many believed that the Western Hemisphere might be next. Even if America managed to repel invasions, its way of life might wither if it were forced to become a garrison state. By the autumn of 1940, many Americans believed it was necessary to help defeat the Axis — even if it meant open hostilities.

link

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.

Your argument is flawed because of your lack of understanding about isolationism. What RP proposes is exactly what's been done before.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:17 PM by nenothtu

Originally posted by Evil_Santa

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.

Well, that answers which events you think are "blowback", but it doesn't answer the why part. Why would anyone consider thise events to be blowback? Are you sure you know what blowback is?

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.

What do you think "facilitate" means? Hammers facilitate the driving of nails. Did yhou really say that communcations are a "tool" that doesn't facilitate anything?

Why should america intervene in someone else's fight?

Answer: they shouldn't. America should only participate in her own fights.

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?

No. A "One World Government" is pretty much self-defining, now isn't it?

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.

Maslow's Heirarchy is a psychological construct, not a philosophy of gevernment - one world or other wise.

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.

There is no naval force on the planet at this point that can provide global coverage for a 72 hour reaction time to everywhere that trouble may pop up. Are you advocting a US military buildup to allow for that?

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.

Not sure how you got that from that, but I believe the US Navy should stay in international waters until they need to be elsewhere - like a flash point or a resupply base.

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.

No, action is. Information does nothing but inform.

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?

If you truly believe that, I can see you've never walked on the wild side. Some humans can govern themselves, but the majority are utterly incapable of doing so, and the attempt leads to all manner of mischief.

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

Not without instantaneous transportation of men and materiel, some sort of giant Star Trek transporter.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 03:20 PM by Donkey_Dean

reply to post by SLAYER69

Slayer I was certain you were that guy on his way to a book signing in Hawaii who off’ed two people and a Sheriffs deputy. You sure you are who you say you are?
www.hawaiinewsnow.com...

edit on 23-1-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 04:27 PM by seabag

reply to post by fockewulf190

For the record: Military spending is only 20% of the US Federal spending. Give me a break already!

Domestic spending FAR outweighs military spending, so we need to cut BS domestic programs, such as the EPA, Dept of Energy, and Dept. of Education to start. We can even dismantle some of the programs started as part of Homeland Security, many of which are redundant. Give the money to the states to address their issues.

Military spending did not lead us to the financial troubles of the day...out of control domestic spending and crony capitalism did.

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 04:34 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by SLAYER69

Slayer I was certain you were that guy on his way to a book signing in Hawaii who off’ed two people and a Sheriffs deputy. You sure you are who you say you are?
www.hawaiinewsnow.com...

This is on topic how exactly?

reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 09:49 PM by mrgregbusybee

reply to post by seabag

That was a very thorough and well thought out thread. I made the mistake of rattling off with a head of steam somewhat...thanks for this post. we've never had world peace, we will never have world peace and the golden rule is an irrational thought in my opinion.

thanks!!! stars and flags...stars and flags

reply posted on 24-1-2012 @ 10:38 AM by MrWendal

reply to post by seabag

How is "My" definition of Isolationism wrong? I posted exactly what is written in the dictionary. So is the Dictionary wrong too?

Here, watch this. You might learn something.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 28-1-2012 @ 02:14 PM by fockewulf190

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by fockewulf190

For the record: Military spending is only 20% of the US Federal spending. Give me a break already!

Domestic spending FAR outweighs military spending, so we need to cut BS domestic programs, such as the EPA, Dept of Energy, and Dept. of Education to start. We can even dismantle some of the programs started as part of Homeland Security, many of which are redundant. Give the money to the states to address their issues.

Military spending did not lead us to the financial troubles of the day...out of control domestic spending and crony capitalism did.

For one, I support RP, support a balanced budget amendment, and support cutting all fiscal waste, redundencies, and infrastructures not affordable in a nation sinking $5 billion a day into debt. Lets face facts. The US military needs to be totally reformed to the core, old traditions need to be deep sixed, and it's constitutional purpose revisited.

There is no valid reason anymore why we have to continue to divide the seperate parts of our military, namely the Army, Air Force and Navy, and the subdivisions Marines and Coast Guard.
Fiscally, maintaining all of these seperate command, logistic, personnel and intelligence structures alone wastes
untold tens of billions per year in useless redundencies. Traditions and military cultural differences need to be regulated to the history books. Specialist functions such as submariner, marine, seabee, pilot or tanker needs to be shoulder tabbed on a common, standerdized uniform. We need one ranking system. One personnel system. One intelligence structure. One command structure. One military acadamy.

We need to deep six destroyers that cost a billion dollars a piece. Fighters that cost over a hundred million a pop. Billion dollar bombers. ICBM dinosaurs. Million dollar a shot missle systems. Get totally out of Italy, Korea, Germany,Spain, the UK and Japan. Build up Hawaii. Ramp up the Marianas and deep six Okinawa. Move the replentishment ships from Diego Garcia to Yokohama. Stop planning for a war with China over Taiwan.

Build up our training bases at home. It made no sense spending zighundreds of millions at Grafenwohr in Germany for new range facilities and the infrastructure and personnel that goes with it, when that money could
have been invested in US training facilities instead. Lets maintain a strong, well trained military protecting our boarders and territories.

Cut the 20% budgetary expenditure down to less than 10% by just eliminating needless BS and focus the mission away from world cop and back to home defence. We'll still have the best military in the world with well paid military personnel, top notch domestic bases, backed by 21st century equipment....just with a lot more core warfighters and much less redundant REMFs and bloated flag ranks.

Then, with a balanced budget amendment to the constitution in place, the rest of the federal government goes under the knife until the fat is trimmed away and only raw muscle is left. The savings goes to restoring infrastructure, paying off debt, and looking out for number one.

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >> ^^TOP^^