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.
Originally posted by TheBlackestSheep
There might be less tension between the US and Russia, but there are hundreds of other aspiring dictators and superpowers just salivating at Paul's brand of 'American isolationism'.
Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole.
In my opinion, American isolation is not a solution to averting World War 3, but a QUEUE for starting it - as the the 'world police' are no longer on the beat, as it were.
Mark my words, with someone like Ron Paul in office, America's enemies would immediately try and provoke her into another war to call us hypocrites - exactly the way Islamists did but attacking the USS Cole and later the twin towers. (Not all conspiracies can be blamed on the US government. This one, in my opinion, literally comes from radical Islam.)
I'll still vote for Paul though if I think he has a chance of winning because domestic issues are just that important. Plus, the American military wouldn't listen to him anyways in time of war so America wouldn't be crippled (much).edit on 13-12-2011 by TheBlackestSheep because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TheBlackestSheep
There might be less tension between the US and Russia, but there are hundreds of other aspiring dictators and superpowers just salivating at Paul's brand of 'American isolationism'.
Ron Paul is definitely the most qualified to tackle domestic issues, but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that unprecedented evil exists all over the world which has nothing to do with United States 'meddling', and that this evil, in its various forms, are in fact bent on destroying American, European, and Western civilization as a whole.
In my opinion, American isolation is not a solution to averting World War 3, but a QUEUE for starting it - as the the 'world police' are no longer on the beat, as it were.
Mark my words, with someone like Ron Paul in office, America's enemies would immediately try and provoke her into another war to call us hypocrites - exactly the way Islamists did but attacking the USS Cole and later the twin towers. (Not all conspiracies can be blamed on the US government. This one, in my opinion, literally comes from radical Islam.)
I'll still vote for Paul though if I think he has a chance of winning because domestic issues are just that important. Plus, the American military wouldn't listen to him anyways in time of war so America wouldn't be crippled (much).edit on 13-12-2011 by TheBlackestSheep because: (no reason given)
but he seems like a complete dunce when it comes to international politics
Originally posted by WarJohn
...would there be any tension between the U.S. of A. and Russia at this point in 2011?
Was a vote not for RP back then a vote for world war three?
Has the voters in the last election day for POTUS been pushed the red botton?
I think it might be too late to have RP as POTUS to avoid world war three now.
What do you all think?
You need to look at it on a case by case basis, rather than just assuming that America's enemies all hate America for the same exact reasons, or that everyone one of these reasons is even valid to begin with.
True, but you could have easily said something like "the world doesn't need policing". This indicates that you're more against America policing the world than it actually being policed to begin with. Why?
What I meant specifically is that IF Ron Paul started making idiotic military decisions, he would be 'pressured' to let the military handle it - not just by the elite, but by at least half the American population as well. (You do realize that many who dislike Ron Paul perceive him to be a coward right?)
A good example would be Iran threatening to nuke Great Britain. Do we just sit back and say 'Not my problem!" or get involved?
You can laugh at this scenario if you want, but you're just setting yourself up to look stupid if it actually happens. The Iranian government, JUST LIKE ANY GOVERNMENT, is full of liars and obsessed with war.
What alternate reality are you living in? How can you suggest the Military would not listen to Ron Paul? He gets more donations from active Military than anyone else, I think that is a pretty good indicator that they would listen.
Furthermore, non intervention and isolation are two completely different things. Ron Paul is not for isolationism. He is for Non Interventionism. He wants to trade with people, he wants dialogue, at the same time he does not think we should stick our nose in other countries domestic issues..and I agree.
Why should the US be the world's policeman? Better yet, let us look at such an idea from the other side. What if China was the world policeman? Would you like China having any say about what happens in your backyard?
You sound Brainwashed into Thinking the Whole World wants to Destroy the United States because some Politicians Tell you So
Listen to our enemies they hate us because we constantly stick our noses in where it doesn't belong.
No we shouldn't get involved GB doesn't need the US to protect them. Iran has no ICBMs so how would it get a nuke there throw it?
Yes Iran is obsessed with war that's why they haven't started one in the last couple of hundred years
Originally posted by buster2010
If RP were in office and he stuck to his word then no there would be no tension between Russia and the US. But seeing how he also said he would cut all foreign aid you can bet there would be tension between the US and Israel. They would make sure he didn't live out his first term.