Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 07/19/2009 11:09:55 AM PDT by camp_steveo
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
~ George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." ...
more: http://mises.org/story/2514
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
I understand RP to believe in a srtict original FP. Many of you claim to be conservatives, but you follow whole-heartedly your Republican leaders who adhere to a new FP based on the belief that the US has been somehow ordained as the police of the world.
This could not be further from the intent of our founders.
I challenge any of you to defend your position against what RP has stated are what he believe to be the original foreign policy positions.
I look forward to your arguments, and I hope this is a learning experience for us all.
~SC
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
Talk about quoting Washinton out of context! Ron Paul doesn’t even quote a complete sentence. For shame Ron! Stop misrepresenting George Washington.
“For shame Ron! Stop misrepresenting George Washington.”
Washington’s farewell addess also warned against political parties and passing constitutional amendments.
Does Ron Paul support these positions as well? Or does he cherry pick his Washington?
You apparently don’t know your history worth a damn. The founders allied with France to win our independence. http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html
Then Jefferson made war on muslim pirates thousands of miles from our shore. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html Then we expanded into what was another country’s land (Spain’s) in Florida. We had to buy our way out of that one.
And no I don’t believe Team America World Police is the right policy. But attempting to make the foreign policy of the early Republic into a Paulian non-interventionist fantasy is inconsistent with the facts and the history. Conservatives know this stuff - you apparently do not.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
Talk about quoting Washinton out of context! Ron Paul doesn’t even quote a complete sentence. For shame Ron! Stop misrepresenting George Washington.
____________________________________
How exactly is that out of context?
Are you suggesting that this: “...so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements...” implies that we are the world’s police? I disagree.
To me, Washington is saying that we will uphold our end of any agreements, but we should not seek out further alliances.
We could easily withdraw our military forces from around the globe and still fulfill our obligations in those regions.
My opinion is that the US could change our FP to an original FP over a period of less than 10 years.
I am not saying, and I don’t believe RP is either, that we should abandon our stations around the world without setting in place a contingency.
In other words, it is very posible to take care of what we are currently engaged in, while working to end those engagements and while avoiding further entangling aliances.
“How exactly is that out of context?”
Ron Paul always quotes that sentence fragment from Washington, and never the whole sentence. And Ron Paul has never said he advocates winding down our foreign obligations as honor permits. He has given everyone the impression that he wants the USA to ditch its foreign obligations immediately. And that is something George Washington would have been strongly opposed to.
-
Simple its our job to be an interventionist nation. We are in about all the countries of the world. We are the world’s only supercop and we should provide the troops and money to carry out UN resolutions. We will do better than England is making sure the sun never sets on us. God Bless us everyone.
RKV,”And no I don’t believe Team America World Police is the right policy”
____________________
If you agree with my argument, then why argue against it?
The Proclamation of Neutrality 1793 as well as the Neutrality Act of 1794, in which George Washington declared that the US and all it’s citizens should remain neutral, backs up RP’s position of non-interventionism.
Also, from your link regarding Jefferson and the Barbary pirates:
“...Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain...During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect “American vessels...After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates.”
How would you have advised Jefferson? I would hardly consider this event in US history reflective of an “interventionist” foreign policy.
The one major issue that I cannot agree with my fellow Freepers on is our foreign policy. The Iraq and Afghan invasions were the dumbest foreign policy moves this country has made in a long time. You don’t fight a loosely organized band of loony religious terrorists by invading and occupying countries. It’s as if nobody in the military ever read Mao’s book on guerilla war. The guerillas will never stand up and face a regular army. They will retreat and wait for a better time and place to attack.
We are wasting our good men and women on something that has no end and no definitive objective. These wars are also bleeding us dry financially, and as with all government endeavors, present plenty of opportunities for scam artists and profiteers to rip off the taxpayers. Politicians don’t care about our troops. They care about campaign contributions from defense companies.
Then there is the issue of our government taking away our rights and justifying it by invoking the war on terror. What happens when our government turns on conservatives and declares us to be terrorists? When we stand by while the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been shredded in the name of Homeland Security, what will protect us from the all-powerful government we helped create? This blind trust in government when it goes to war puzzles me. Government lies all the time, and especially during wartime.
Finally, while our troops are guarding the borders of Iraq, building schools, and handing out trash cans as a public service (Is this really how conservatives want to see our militar being used?), our own borders are wide open. We are allowing more and more Muslims into our country. This is the biggest threat to US security; not what happens overseas. We are creating our very own Future Terrorists of America groups, and nobody seems to care.
I know that most of the people here disagree, but I think it is nuts to continue to expand our presence overseas. Foreigners are going to take over our country without even firing a shot while we are meddling in other countries trying to turn tribal cultures into Western-style democracies.
Look for youtube videos of what our troops are saying about the Afghan soldiers and police they are trying to help and train. It’s a joke. As our soldiers say, all the Afghan guys do is sit around and smoke pot all day. They are completely unreliable. It is an exercise in futility.
Ping
Owl558: “Washington’s farewell addess also warned against political parties and passing constitutional amendments.
Does Ron Paul support these positions as well? Or does he cherry pick his Washington?”
_________________________
Quite often RP speaks against both political parties. Personally, I would like to see an end to party politics. I am in favor of debating ideas, not letters beside someone’s name.
As for Constitutional amendments, the founders intentionally made it difficult to amend the USC. Why would anyone disagree with that?
You raised an important topic for conservative discussion but there will be fewer posts than on teen sex.
You may wat to research “Barbary Coast War” 1801 - 1805 under President Thomas Jefferson.
Read and research carefully. War was declared upon the US. Jefferson requested a Declaration of War, but since Congress did not give one, he released the captured pirates.
Ron Paul always quotes that sentence fragment from Washington, and never the whole sentence. And Ron Paul has never said he advocates winding down our foreign obligations as honor permits. He has given everyone the impression that he wants the USA to ditch its foreign obligations immediately. And that is something George Washington would have been strongly opposed to.
_____________________________________
Ron Paul - foreign policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4hKqTikqM
“I know that most of the people here disagree, but I think it is nuts to continue to expand our presence overseas.”
I’m quite sure you have the majority both here and in the country agreeing with you. But there is no similar majority to cut and run from existing treaty obligations without fair warning to our allies. And that is the primary reason Ron Paul is viewed as an extremist, and lost the Republican Presidential nomination.
And the extensive British counterterrorism/counterinsurgency experience was totally ignored, even by Gen. Petraeus in his early days (fortunately, he seemed to have learned from it), costing us greatly in Tal'Afar and Fallujah.
It's sadly pathetic how FReepers who complain about government waste will support a system where "success" for senior officers is often measured in how many dollars they can hand out, not actual progress, and how many projects get funded multiple times.
It’s as if nobody in the military ever read Mao’s book on guerilla war.
Actually, it's as if nobody SENIOR in the military has ever read much at all on these topics. Many of the junior to mid-level officers are sickened by it all.
One can definitely support the troops without supporting the way these wars have been executed.
EXACTLY!
Many FReepers who get their history lessons entirely from talk radio might be surprised to find that the war was a war declared upon us, not us upon them.
That's because this is an uncomfortable topic for "conservatives."
George Washington
Any notice, the more the U.S. is involved in other countries, free trade schemes, globalism, wars, disputes, open borders, etc, etc, the lower our standard of living, the worse our economy becomes, our debt has become limitless, and all the while our government grows larger?
I still don’t see the fault in RP’s foreign policy position.
Why do we have to maintain bases in Europe? Can’t they take care of themselves? Same thing with South Korea. Why can’t they take care of themselves?
The same question goes for every other country that we are in.
Furthermore, What difference does it make to the US if a foreign country is controlled by a dictator? Maybe the people of those countries should start their own revolution, like the US did.
Our national debt isn’t shrinking folks, and our FP is costing us $1 TRILLION per year. That’s too much.
This policy can still work, provided we take into account modern developments. ICBM’s, nuclear & biological weapons, and even large attacks like 9-11, mean we cannot sit back and be defended by our oceans. The best defense is to warn the world that we will tolerate NO attack on our country or people. The best way to warn the world of this is to obliterate any country or group that violates this tenent.
We have failed to answer attacks this way for 50 years and now no one takes us seriously. Which means that until we get back to sure, swift and final punishment for all transgressors, we can never go back to Washington’s foreign policy ideal. If you are going to walk softly, you must have a big, and terrible stick.
I always like while we are spending tens of billions in Iraq, rebuilding all their crap, schools etc, our own GD infrastructure is going to hell.
How stupid is this?
I wonder if the Iraqis can or will loan us some money to help out with our neglected infrastructure in repayment for all we have done for them?
Fine, you pledge it out of your account. Just leave mine the hell alone.
Woof. Your sarcasm will be lost on many.
"Fine, you pledge it out of your account. Just leave mine the hell alone."
Since I have no money for supercops or the U.N. can they omit my account too?
Find a way to funnel the money to the right people, and the same can be done here. It’s just easier to skim off the graft half a world away.
You kidding?
We've probably spent close to a trillion dollars in other countries in just the past few years, while our own infrastructure, economy, borders etc go to hell...This after all, is our national suicide, country killing policies.
I only wish things weren't so screwed up to the point, where obvious sarcasm is no longer recognized.
Thank you for the link and information.
I need education all the time.
Much appreciated.
ping for later.
And see my FR homepage explaining the “definitive object” in Iraq; specifically, to begin eliminating the direct causes of extremist ideology that manifest as terrorist attacks (poorly articulated by our former president as “draining the swamps”).
Thank you for the link and information.
I need education all the time.
Much appreciated.
_____________________________
You are welcome my friend.
I too am always seeking knowledge and information that will help me gain a better understanding.
You hit the nail on the head.
Financing the UN is just a way of stealing our money and leaving our US leadership unaccountable for it. The UN spends the money in some 3rd world or war-torn nation and the money miraculously disappears, only to reappear in offshore corporate accounts or in the pockets of some bloated bureaucrats who then spend some of that money lobbying the US Congress for MORE money for their "projects".
Add to that NATO, whose original charter was wholly defensive, but who has since turned into an aggressive bully scaring nations into joining them. Then we have to fund those NATO projects, too -- increasing the chances of conflicts that require "UN assistance". It's a giant shell game.
Americans need to realize that the more we interfere in the politics of the world, the more that the world is going to interfere with us and with our politics. The more we attempt to manipulate them and their governments, the more that they will attempt to manipulate us and our government.
There was a time when America was loved and respected in the world -- and that was our real power. The people of other countries tried to emulate us and believed in us, even when their own governments were fighting against us.
Now, we don't even believe ourselves or trust our own government.
We need to restore our integrity and credibility as a country. Until we do -- until we restore the Americans faith in our own country, no one will respect us, because we don't even respect ourselves or own policies.
If we had a choice to check yea or nay on our tax forms for global projects involved in "creating alleged democracies", "policing" the world, supporting with humanitarian aid terror minded states, supporting the so called Palestinians, fighting alleged global hunger for a people who multiply like rabbits, funding global abortions, funding dictators, etc etc, the funds, in all likelihood, would be non-existent.
This is why we are not provided the choice. The indentured servant has no standing in these matters. Since these matters are reserved for the international masters who know what is best for the servants, and their well being. Should we protest too much, well, they know how to punish us.
Actually, I was talking about the private contractors who are screwing over the American taxpayer while rebuilding Iraq. But you go ahead.
I agree. We should have the strongest military on the planet and be ready to pound into rubble anybody who dares attack us, but why we need the empire to stretch into 120 or so countries - especially when the empire if flat broke - is beyond my ken.
I know a guy who recently acquired a contract job in Kuwait. He will be paid 80k a year plus expenses to create websites for extending and aiding communications between commands. I remember doing that for much less while serving in the Marines. We had teletype to communicate between commands. Had I known how valuable my services were, I would have demanded a pay increase. :)
Oh yea, before I forget, your pal should take the safe route, always include the sarc on/off. There’s really no need to excite the unknowing unnecessarily. Unless of course, the intent is to create victims to laugh at. In that case, it’s disgusting as well as shameful. Since we are not mind readers, and it’s not like everyone knows everyone else.
While I confess I thought the comment might be sarcasm, I was not totally convinced either way. Moreover, until I get a confirmation from the perp him/herself, I’m still not 100% sure. So there.
So let’s just keep on doing it, even though it is obviously not what the framers intended?
I don’t see the logic.
There...corrected.
In any case, however, the US was not out there intervening. We were non-interventionist, and Congress waited more than half a year after war was declared against us before authorizing defense of shipping!
I think that makes the case quite clearly that the Founding Fathers (Federalist or Dem-Rep) were not of the "World Police" mindset.
Many conservatives fail to recognize that our foreign policy is managed by big government liberals entrenched in the state department. This was made obvious when big government liberal, George Bush, was continually undermined by “his” own state department.
I pointed out the "private contractors in Iraq bleeding us dry" issue several years ago on FR, and almost got my head ripped off by most of the posters, Wolfie. I was told that "I didn't understand how crucial private contractors were to the war & rebuilding effort".
Okey dokey, didn't go there again -- but I agree with you!
It’s safe to go there now. Bush isn’t running the show anymore, so all that stuff is bad again.
And what were those wars about? Protecting our commerce and protecting our territory. There were direct American interests involved to which the combatants were a threat.
There is a difference between pacifism and non-interventionism.
Pacifism says "never fight a war".
Non-interventionism says "only fight your own wars, when you have to, to protect your own country's direct interests, and do it legally. Don't go traipsing all over the world looking for a fight with people who aren't your enemy and aren't directly a threat to your country's interests."
It's wrong to confuse the two concepts -- because there is a big difference between America steering her own ship (non-interventionism), and America attempting to control all the ships in the world.
I am glad this got posted. I think it really needs to be discussed.
I am strongly opposed to the re-emergence of the Ron Paul FP doctrines in the Republican party:
1. These policies by any name, caused 911. The world because this is not 1776 is composed of no less than 150 sovereign states that would delight in seeing America at the bottom of a crater. They continue to delight in the massive harm that came to this nation on 911. Since 1776, the same interests that prompted the attack on Islamic pirates at their base in Tripoli confronts enemies that can pack a far more lethal array of force against our nation.
2. There is no indication that the 150 nations of Hate would interpret our “non-intervention” policy as anything but an open call to proliferate and exchange whatever deadly materials for bringing this nation to an instantaneous and deadly end.
3. Despite the extensive concert of Evil arrayed against us, the Bush doctrine remains the most effective foreign policy exercise since the end of World War II. Yeah, I actually do believe that. The Bush doctrine explicitly defeated by military means: 1) Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia. The Bush doctrine explicitly defeated by diplomatic means: 1) Libya, Syria, ABu Sayaf rebels, Sudan, and Russia.
4. Bush built an alliance with India that remains a radically potent alliance in the WOT and the potential conflict with China. India is a better potential ally and trading partner than China.
5. Bush turned the tide of Islamism on the continent of AFrica forging major alliances with Ethiopia, Southern Sudan, Liberia to name a few. Bush brought a sense of heroism about America that is unprecedented.
The shameful display of contempt by Republicans toward the President Bush is one of utter cowardice in the face of a pro communist anti freedom anti war movement that truly has no problem with war but that it be against our very freedoms and capitalism. The idea that America is the Great Torturer and the World is the vast Innocent is utterly depraved and a grotesque premise from which to build a foreign policy.
Count me OUT of the Ron Paul Camp!
Where is the Constitutional authority for that one?
It irks me no end that we are paying disproportionally with our tax dollars for that Socialist love-fest and increasing our debt by leaps and bounds here at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.