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

reply to post by XelNaga

any issue that may arise, should we remove our soldiers from bases around the world, should be taken care of the people who live in the countries where those bases are established. this would not make us a weaker nation, not by any means. our soldiers would be brought home and this would help establish a powerful national defense.

Thanks for the response and I appreciate the kind words.

We’ve tried what you said. How’d it work out pre-WW2? Did they take care of themselves? History has shown that if we are isolated as a nation then we wait until the threat becomes a serious problem.

Do you know how many people died to correct the previous wars we waited too long to end? The human death toll of WW1 and WW2 combined was over 77 million lives! Those deaths occurred 50+ years ago. Should we go back to that naïve policy of isolationism after the outcome we had the last two times?

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


I didn't vote for the present nor preceding administration.

What makes you assume that because I'm not one to jump on the speculative FEAR bandwagon that I support the present or prior administrations dubious flirtations and preoccupation for overseas cluster----s?

reply to post by SLAYER69


My Post was Not directed at you , it was an Observation of what you mentioned . The Situation of the " Here and Now " is selfevident for anyone to see .

The problem as I see it is that the Power Elite create wars and the left/right paradigm creates a constant tension between a faction who wants to not fight and a faction who wants to confront evil. The problem is that the same people who are stirring up conflicts are also in the business of stirring up anti-war rhetoric. Soros attends Bilderberg meetings alongside all the other bigwigs.
The thing is that over the past century, communism really has been a genuine threat to the peace and prosperity of the world. Look at all the gulags and the labor camps. How can anyone in their right mind support that? That is why we were in Korea and Viet Nam, to fight against communism, a genuine threat. To ignore communism today is still folly. They have just changed the names. We saw how ACORN changed the names of its various outlets to confuse people and hide their activities. Worldwide communism is exactly the same. The communists are still around, but now they are in the WH too.
Kruschev was right when he said the communists would concquer the US from within.
Now today instead of the traditional threats of communism in the Cold war, we have this ghostlike spectre of terrorism. We are trying to fight it, but it's like putting your hand through a hologram. we never really seem to know exactly where it is located. We think it's in this or that country but the terrorists just keep moving around and we keep moving around with them.
In the process, we are depleting our resources.
I believe we need to have balance. We need to keep our defenses strong but not deplete our resources.
And yes, we need to repeal Obamacare. The Entitlement welfare state is not the design of our Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision and it will bankrupt us not just economically, but spiritually and morally. It is not a just method of dealing with healthcare. It will be fraught with corruption and obama has already given waivers to his friends. why would he do that if it's such a great important achievement? The answer is that it's corrupt as all get out and a diabolical plan of socialist policy which is designed to draw everyone into the welfare state. It is designed to eliminate private property and individual rights. That in and of itself is an immediate reason why it is unConstitutional.
remember the preamble originally said "life, liberty, and property" and was changed to "pursuit of happiness".
The world "property" is key.
Defense of our nation is really the key provision of the Constitution, not providing healthcare in a welfare state.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by seabag

Defend RP already...I'm getting tired of waiting!

Can't defend the indefensible??

Asked and answered many times.

I think your just looking for another 40 page , flag waving thread.

Emoticons are a sign of no arguement, you are quite liberal with them this thread.

Haven't seen a defense yet. I'm looking for an answer, not a 40 page flag waving thread that makes YOU look silly!

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

My Post was Not directed at you , it was an Observation of what you mentioned . The Situation of the " Here and Now " is selfevident for anyone to see .

Self evident?

Maybe, but I've also seen a lot of condemnations, accusations and hypotheticals for things, activities and possible situations/scenarios which have not and may not ever occur.

That's what I meant by keeping it in the here and now.


PEACE

reply to post by SLAYER69


The Bottom Line is NO ONE really knows what the Federal Goverment and the joint Chiefs of Staff will do Next about Iran , so yes, I can see how people groping for answers will start speculating in many different directions, and make many absurd allegations with no basis in facts .

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Who made false allegations or is groping for answers?

Who mentioned Iran?

In-general, RP’s foreign policy of closing US bases abroad is bad. If US had the same projection of power we have today (forget the technology) back in the early 1900’s the World Wars likely wouldn’t have happened.

reply to post by seabag


I figured as much...

History has proven isolationism doesn’t work. Obviously nobody on ATS can make a cogent argument in defense of RP’s foreign policy.

Not a surprise to me…and its reflected in the primary election tally to date; 3 contests so far and RP hasn’t won one yet. There are only 4 players now and RP has no shot in Florida (I heard he was skipping Florida SHOCKING!)

America doesn’t trust this policy because history tells the truth…isolationism is a failed policy.

reply to post by seabag


ATS needs a new rule about trolling and drunk posting. It's gotten so bad you're now replying to your own posts. It's obvious by now that-

1. You are either drunk since you claimed you never said HOMELAND, despite the fact its still there in your post and been quoted several times.

2. Or you're the new breed of troll, that fakes ignorance as a defense from being banned, a typical tactic of that is to include lots of emoticons when you lack a substantive argument.

3. Hell.. maybe you really are brainwashed by fox news and Rush Limbaugh.

Generally I dislike attacking the poster instead of the content, but in your case you reap what you sow. Your argument has been countered time and again, and yet you refuse to reply to those in any substantive way because the whole premise of your OP is flawed to the core.

/thread

Let me start by saying, OP I admire you taking a stand and defending your beliefs. That is admirable and for that you have my respect. More people should be able to do it.

Unfortunately I feel like you rewrote history a bit and I disagree with a majority of your post. I really dont have time to break it all down, Im at work right now, but you can expect my full reply tomorrow.

I wouldnt have ANY problem with Ron Paul bringing the troops home. We could protect our borders,our ports,dump the TSA,and stick actual National Guard,that belong in our States,at the airports. Better trained also..But..............................................The World, in less then a year would come asking for help.Some wannabe SuperPower ,with a rush of Nationalistic Pride,and lust for forgotten territory's would pop up,to threaten the World. Japan would have no choice but to rearm. North Korea,and the Chinese would walk into the Asian country's,they believe are theirs.Really,I have thought about it. There would be no more calling America Warmongers,although,I believe blame would be held against America for not helping. And then..We stay out of it.We let those country's go at it.Because America doesn't need the grief,of lost men and women dying to help the World.We stay diplomatic,continue free trade.Jews die? So be it. Muslims die? So be it. Not our fight. Hell,keep the missiles,we gave you. Keep the bases,the arms. We will leave it all for the country's we walk out on.


But that wouldn't be American,right?

MHO/Rant

reply to post by seabag


I'd rather pay for MY peoples healthcare than an over-sized military that likes to war monger and slaughter civilians. Or for things like Guantanamo Bay.

reply to post by seabag


What makes you believe that humanity hasn't progressed in the last 100 years, and is giving you cause to base your entire argument on? We have advanced tremendously from then. Back then you went to the theater once a month to get your political news (propaganda) and people were extremely ignorant about the world outside of their country. Today we have instantaneous world-wide communication, and even a growing global consciousness due to these advancements. Why would the bulk of humanity even want to participate in World War III?

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.

Originally posted 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.

Even if what you say is true,

Wouldnt another "bully" pop up?

Try tackling my post above.Dissect it,show me that this wouldn't be the likely scenario.

Think about this. If EVERYONE voted for Ron Paul,just on Foreign Policy,and if likely WW3 broke out in the world,HOW would we be ANYWHERE near to stop it,if every base was closed,all our troops sitting at home,and would ANYONE want war,if they voted to bring everyone home,with Ron Pauls Foreign Policy??



I voted for RP twice BTW. I like a lot of his style of Politics,I at one point thought it would be grand,to have ALL the boys and girls home. Then I really thought what it would be like. The scenario scared the hell out of me. Now, limited based closed,and half the troops home?sure,if it was strategic.

reply to post by seabag


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.

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

So, again, I see no evidence provided that shows how our non-interventionist policies caused more loss of American lives than would have occurred had we gotten involved prior to being engaged.


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.)

reply to post by Count Chocula

ATS needs a new rule about trolling and drunk posting. It's gotten so bad you're now replying to your own  posts

Not drunk here, chief. But I agree about a trolling rule. 

1. You are either drunk since you claimed you never said HOMELAND, despite the fact its still there in your post and been quoted several times.

I stand corrected. I used that term in a response. So the term "homeland" somehow diminishes my credibility? 

2. Or you're the new breed of troll, that fakes ignorance as a defense from being banned, a typical tactic of that is to include lots of emoticons when you lack a substantive argument.

I would bet my OP has more substance than all of your contributions to ATS combined.  

3. Hell.. maybe you really are brainwashed by fox news and Rush Limbaugh.

Yawn......

Generally I dislike attacking the poster instead of the content, but in your case you reap what you sow. Your argument has been countered time and again, and yet you refuse to reply to those in any substantive way because the whole premise of your OP is flawed to the core.

I'm not convinced. You resorted to personal attacks because you have nothing to say in defense. 

I might need a drink if I have to read more of your garbage, bud. 

reply to post by MrWendal

Let me start by saying, OP I admire you taking a stand and defending your beliefs. That is admirable and for that you have my respect. More people should be able to do it.

Thank you, sir. 

Unfortunately I feel like you rewrote history a bit and I disagree with a majority of your post. I really dont have time to break it all down, Im at work right now, but you can expect my full reply tomorrow.

I fit 100 years of history into 2 posts...there are some blanks for sure. However, I don't feel that I rewrote history. I look forward to your reply tomorrow. After your history revision please tell me how RP's policy is going to make me safer.

I dunno. I'm torn here. I'm an "isolationist", but not of the Ron Paul variety. I don't think isolation needs to automatically lead to weakness through disarmament. I think we should dial back on combat troops overseas, and line our borders with them rather than getting rid of them. I'm not for closing all the overseas bases - if push comes to shove and some little terrier of a country decides to jump the Big Dog, those overseas bases become important as FOB's and staging areas, and without them we're hamstrung.

I think we should cut back drastically on foreign aid. We're spreading way too much money and industrial capacity to people that want nothing more than to see us dead, and I just can't find the logic in that.

I couldn't care less if the rest of the worlds eats itself, and then picks it's teeth with it's own bones.

We probably need to cut back on foreign bases, and keep the essential ones in friendly nations. I'm all for cutting Korea loose, for example. I recall the protests in Seoul wanting the US out. I think we ought to go, and let them deal with the aftermath as they reconsider the wisdom of those protests.

I'd keep relations with Britain, but wouldn't be bothered in the least if the rest of Europe melted to a puddle and sank to the bottom of the sea. Africa is a lost cause. I don't know anyone who has lost anything there other than blood and tears, and I don't know ANYONE who would go back there on purpose.

The Middle East? let it turn itself into glass. The oil ain't worth the trouble. We've got oil here, if we can get the bleeding hearts off their asses and onto a well pump. Central America? Put troops on the southern border (give 'em BULLETS this time!) and let everything from the Rio Grande to the isthmus turn itself into smoking Mayan ruins. South America? lump Venezuela and Columbia in with Central America (they're trying to do that themselves anyhow), and maintain aloof and guarded relations with the rest on a country by country basis.

China and Southeast Asia? Take steps to right that trade imbalance, and if they don't like it, cut relations altogether. I'd maintain ties with India just to keep everyone else on their toes and guessing. Australia I'm in a quandary over. Aussies are nice enough people, and a fairly tough bunch, but their government seems to have gone as badly tits-up as the US government has done, or maybe worse, over the past 30 years or so. I can't figure out why the Aussies have let that happen any more than I can figure out why Americans have let it happen here.

Russia? I'd come to an understanding - you don't kill us any more, and we won't kill you. If you DO kill us some more, we'll kill the hell right back out of you.You want to be friends, we'll talk, but if not, we've got nothing more to say. Go your own way.

No, I'm not for weakening the US through disarmament at all, and history shows that when a nation weakens itself too much, someone else comes along and kicks it's ass, just for fun. At the same time, I'm not for spreading over the Earth like a globalist disease. I'd talk to folks who want to be friends, and cut the rest loose like a bad habit, leaving them at the mercy of whatever planetary Pirate that wants to eat them.

So you see, I'm torn on the issue.

reply to post by seabag


Actually, the whole Vietnam debacle was avoidable. I just don't buy the conventional explanation for that conflict.

Otherwise, carry on with your sanitized, homogenized version of world events circa WWII.