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

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
We have no money. Understand?

Maybe we should drop Obamacare!

We're never too broke to be free and safe!

Safe from what? Angry people in countries We have placed puppets into by force?

I don't doubt Others have mentioned that there is no such thing as "safety." Life itself is dangerous. Being strong in Our defense is a good thing. Aggressively spreading "democracy" at gunpoint is not. Being diplomatic is a good thing. Forcing Our ideologies on Others is not.

I think Paul has absolutely the best idea.

Why don't you try our foriegn policy in miniture.Get one of your buddies and go to a neighbors house.Walk right on in and tell him your friend is taking over as head of household and if he protests since there are two of you beat the crap out of him.If his wife protests beat her too.The kids will welcome you with open arms.tomorrow get another buddy and go to the next house repeat.It'll only be a week or so until your the most loved man in your neighborhood.
As far as Wilson goes I believe he passed the federal reserve into being for the same bankers who now run our country.What got us into the war was making sure a passenger liner was sent into waters the German govt.told us not to send any ships into.I wonder if the power behind the fed had anything to do with that?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there is a middle gound betrween isolationism and "world police"

I would like to see the US move more towards the middle myself

It's all come down to cash. When your broke, you can't fill your car up with gas. It doesn't matter if you only want to drive to the next town instead of cross-country like in the past. You can only ask your friends for gas money so many times until they finally say no.

reply to post by seabag


Isolationism: 4-5 years of intense combat followed by the greatest economic power housing seen by man.


"involvement": Unending decade of war fighting sheep herders with ak47s, economic depression, and civil unrest.



....


I'll take isolationism, thank you.

If the US made took those military bases and transformed them into civil services bases to promote travel, trade, knowledge and goodwill. I think many countries would welcome the US into their countries. I would also help the US keep an eye out for instability and threats.

Imagine bases where US citizens could travel to and make long term stays in foreign lands.

reply to post by FoosM


That's called a colony...

The only thing history had shown us is that right or wrong, those with the money will always get their way in the end. Call me cynical, but the common folk like you and I never get to decide this kind of stuff.

We're just along for the ride, really.

The more I read about geopolitics, the less I realize I know. However, one overriding theme seems to be that nation-states are only able operate within a very narrow range of realistic options. Although Dr. Paul's ideas sound great to me, international relations rest on a very delicate balance (or imbalance perhaps), and I feel that nobody can truly make accurate predictions of the possible destabilizing effects of a given set of policies. I don't think Ron Paul would be able to run things much differently than Obama, Romney, or even Bush. What do you think?

I understand where OP is coming from, but what I want to know who is going to pay for all these wars?

reply to post by seabag


I do not think about U.S. overseas military base closures in generality. Rather, it is of vital interest to ask what purpose each base serves. Does it fit within the framework of foreign policy? What is the foreign policy? Does it necessarily confer economic advantage? Does it provoke unnecessary tension? Is it affordable? Does the host nation provide a discount rate that an American military presence affords its nation? What do we give up domestically with each overseas military camp, base, fort, et cetera?

I am suggesting that generality in this case should not be used descriptively. Human action is not deterministic in a universal sense (e.g. America recusing itself miltarily from the international community would result in WWIII). As a consequence I perceive it as being of vital interest to ask many specific questions about many specific cases versus categorizing overseas military bases as one positive sum in a general sense.

Today's traditions and normatives compel us to believe that current policies and institutions are necessary, and yet they hardly go the way of meaningfully justifying their policies & expenditure (e.g Homeland Security justifying its screening procedures based on events in Iraq is an insult to the guys and gals who know better). Instead, they evolve into behemoths that, with time, continually aggrandize unto themselves all things possible.

One justification for the viewpoint espoused in the OP centers on America's neutrality prior to WWI. Okay, that is one side of a two-sided coin. Fair enough. I will share first that I do not call into question your motivation. Intrinsically, I believe that your motivation is to preserve life, economic welfare, energy security, and probably liberty as well. As such my response does not call into question your character, but rather what you emphasize. In my estimation history may be neatly summarized as emphasis. As such emphasis subsumes unto itself the distinction of correctness in correspondence with beliefs & values. The question worth asking is whether there exists equilibrium between the dichotomies of emphases?

My side of the coin in terms of America's neutrality prior to its overt involvement in WWI.

Three parts Bolshevism, two parts Austrian, one part French, three parts Great Britain, three parts Germany, two parts Serbia, et al. What do the proportions represent? Complexity that cannot be realistically fixed. My underlying point is that war in Europe became a self-fulfilling prophecy based on geopolitical dynamics that resulted in shared responsibility amongst Eurasian nations for the onset of war in Europe. The focus (i.e. emphasis), however, is not what precipitated war in Europe; rather, it is America's neutrality which, later, underwent metamorphasis into what we now refer to as isolationism.

Did President Wilson's public rhetoric (i.e. America's position of neurtality) correspond with his private action and beliefs? Is it true that public statements by political figures (elected or appointed) may say one thing on Monday and do the opposite at close-of-business on Friday?

mises.org...
"Great Wars & Great Leaders", Ralph Riaco
Essay number 1

Interesting citations:

Two weeks before the assassination of the Archduke, Wilson delivered an address on Flag Day. His remarks did not bode well for American abstention in the coming war. Asking what the flag would stand for in the future, Wilson replied: “for the just use of undisputed national power . . . for self-possession, for dignity, for the assertion of the right of one nation to serve the other nations of the world.” As President, he would “assert the rights of mankind wherever this flag is unfurled.”

John Basset More

What most decisively contributed to the involvement of the United States in the war was the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to reason and to settled law, and no other professed neutral advanced them.

Borchard and Lage

This persistent refusal of President Wilson to see that there was a relation between the British irregularities and the German submarine warfare is probably the crux of the American involvement. the position taken is obviously unsustainable, for it is a neutral’s duty to hold the scales even and to favor neither side.

I've only 89 characters left. Awesome. Irrespective, it is possible to focus on one sub thesis (i.e. American neutrality prior to WWI) & show that emphasis can be a two-legged chair whose use requires a concentrated effort to balance. Dr. Paul may in the end be wrong, but the current policy warrants scrutiny.

Originally posted by seabag
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.

It was already explained to you, but you continue to ignore it, that Paul's foreign policy is what our forefathers espoused, non-interventionism--it is NOT isolationism.

Paul actually served in the military, so he has some experience. Neither Obama, Gingrich, Romney nor Santorum served, so what do they know? Chickenhawks all! Paul receives more campaign donations from active-duty military than all other GOP candidates combined, plus more than Obama. They are actually over there fighting, in the midst of war. I would think that it would be prudent to listen to what they say--and they overwhelming say that Paul's foreign policy is correct--rather than what those who have never served believe.

In addition, Michael Scheuer, ex-CIA bin Laden chief, agrees with Paul's foreign policy. Robert Steele, ex-CIA, agrees with Paul's foreign policy. Chris Preble, Cato, and Harvey Sapolsky, MIT (foreign policy experts) agree with Paul's foreign policy. The CIA actually coined (and teaches) the term blowback--referring to unintended consequences of our actions abroad.

As far as Paul not winning any "contests" so far, how do you know?? Iowa has 8 precincts that cannot be certified. Paul may have won. In addition, in South Carolina, 100% of election results were redirected through a private Barcelona-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, BEFORE being reported to the public! Like I trust those results! And about 20 other states will be handled by SCYTL, as well. What the H is a foreign company doing with their nose in our election processes??????? Not to mention, have you ever heard of the film, "Hacking Democracy?
www.marketwatch.com...

SO…those who blame the US for the aggression displayed by some nations in the Middle-East are partially correct. However, this aggression is not a result of US occupation, murder, or genocide as many ridiculously claim, but US is responsible for some of these monsters.

Really? I stopped reading here. You're an idiot. How can you not attribute massive amounts of destruction and suffering to their aggression?

The fact is, America has f*cked up the world with their aggressive world stance. Honestly, if American politicians had their way, they'd own and run every country on the planet with brute force and fear tactics.

Just like Nazi Germany.

I think it's time for the world to grow up and realize all these stupid wars are the result of THE WRONG PEOPLE BEING IN CHARGE, and nothing more. These wars aren't about liberation or democracy or economic independence, they're the inevitable result of over-zealous population and power control mechanisms. I mean f*ck, world war 2 would never have happened if the western economic powers of the world didn't fund Hitler's political AND military campaign!

Ron Paul might not have all the answers, but I think he's a good first step in America returning to its intellectual roots. Peace through intelligence, not fear. F*ck Reagan. You cannot fix the world by blowing up everyone who disagrees with your ideologies. Why America HAS to be the world police is beyond me. And the only threat communism poses to America is that it might expose the current system of capitalism as wildly unbalanced and unfathomably corrupt. You'd have to invent a new world just to accurately describe the corruption in the world economy today.

America dictates the world's culture and politics. If America pulls their sh*t together and create a free, prospering nation where everyone's HAPPY, then the rest of the world will follow in their footsteps. And if they don't, that's no reason to invade them. These middle-eastern countries aren't angry at America because they're jealous or because Americans are heretics. The majority of them are angry at America because America killed their family and destroyed their f*cking home! Prevention-ism is just a euphemism for preemption. If you're going to run the world like that, you might as well lock every man and woman up for their potential future crimes.

I can't take anything you say seriously when you're spewing the same ignorant nonsense as the past dozens of horrible presidents America has regretfully endured. America needs to mind its own business and worry about Nazi uprisings when the time comes. Which should be easy enough to do if they don't pay the enemy's bills. America needs to fix its own homeland before it tries to forcefully fix others'. It's not fair to destroy freedom and liberty in the name of "security". What's the point in living in a "safe" country when your every action and personal habit is scrutinized by a resentful and oppressive overseer? No one wants to destroy America for any other reason besides retribution and revenge for things America has done and continues to do in the past. And with the US war machine as it stands, with leading world technology, what f*cking threat do these nations pose? If you look closely, you'll notice that all these American laws and protection systems being implemented focus more on its own people than "the enemy". Is it because incredibly dangerous terrorists have really infiltrated American soil? Or is it because normal every-day Americans themselves have become the enemy because increasing numbers of people are refusing this fascist policy? I'd rather die in a nazi camp than live in a fully-realized American dream!

reply to post by seabag


Ron Paul want to cut off from the current policy on wars. He said he wanted to put an end to aggresive wars, not the defensive ones.
So every time American citizens declare that such war is a threat to our country, we are obliged to take part in it.
And i concur. Wars should be fought only for the greater good of American citizens or to defend the homeland.
It's a shame we don't have referendums like in Switzerland. People could directly vote for or against some problems that needs national consensus.

I think Ron Paul is on the right track, but he oversimplifies his foreign policy ideas way too much. I also think he should inform people that he would never expect to implement such a policy overnight, as it would be logistically impossible. Our military presence in many countries is like a knife in their gut. We may not be totally welcome, but the blade is keeping them from bleeding to death, so to speak. You can't just yank the knife out - you need to do it slowly if you do it at all.

I also think that we need to keep a presence in many countries, while we could probably eliminate our presence in others. While I understand that by having many bases, it gives the enemy too many targets to take out effectively, do we really need that many? Technology has advanced to the point where have a much better (even realtime) situational awareness.

Basically I am for Paul's foreign policy. Not only do we need to follow the constitution and have congress declare war (which would spur debate and bring to the surface the real reasons we're even considering war), we need to stop invading countries for corporate gain, and leave people alone. Unless it threatens American lives. If someone attacks us, we put them down with such overwhelming force that it will be clear that we will defend ourselves decisively. That's why it's called the "Defense Department".

Quick story. I was at my parents' house for dinner, and they had friends there. One was a veteran of Korea (I think) and we were talking politics. I mentioned Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy, and I misspoke and used the term "isolationist" when I meant "noninterventionist". The way he glared at me I thought he was going to produce a bayonet from his belt and disembowel me right there. That word 'isolationist' has a deep-rooted meaning for that generation. Candidates wanting these people's votes had best not use that term. This is also why Mitt Romney is getting these votes.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


But don't you think USA suggests that whole world is enemy, by building bases in about almost every country on this planet? Really,from where comes this need of having more than 900 bases throughout the world, as Ron Paul had said? Having so many bases is indication that we are ready to perform preemptive strike on everyone who is a close neighbor to our bases.

Originally posted by piotrburz
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

But don't you think USA suggests that whole world is enemy, by building bases in about almost every country on this planet? Really,from where comes this need of having more than 900 bases throughout the world, as Ron Paul had said? Having so many bases is indication that we are ready to perform preemptive strike on everyone who is a close neighbor to our bases.

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

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

Exactly. I don't think we need all those bases. I do think we need some, though.

In the event Russia or someone else launches a strike against the US, it would be handy to have defense systems in place that would intercept that attack before it gets to American soil. How best to protect American lives?

Operative term here: Defense systems. Defense.

reply to post by seabag


@OP

So we should base our military all over the world, perpetually creating anger and hate with each passing day, because if we don't, we won't prevent WWIII from happening...


Sounds logical.

Not.

Furthermore,

We start more wars than any other country...
So by your logic...
Other powerful countries should have military bases here, in case we start a bunch of wars.
Where would we be then?

I'm sorry if I sound like a stubborn mule, but sometimes people are just plain wrong.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I understand where OP is coming from, but what I want to know who is going to pay for all these wars?

The taxpayer. It makes sense because every single taxpayer supports the war and our bloated government.
Sometimes, you wonder if god exists when certain people don't get assassinated.

reply to post by nenothtu


You Sir,are absolutely spot on.



You wrote what I should have.........