Posted on 06/22/2009 7:37:25 AM PDT by aic4ever
Anybody who has followed what I write, or who has perhaps decided to read a few things here and there, ought to very well know that I am fan of Ron Paul. I have enjoyed the fact that his voice has come more to the forefront over the past year or two as a necessary voice of reason in terms of the economy. However, when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul has, essentially 100% of the time, been laughed off the stage.
While the predominant issue of the past eight years has obviously been the war on terror and our foreign policy, I have, until recently, not paid much attention as I have not felt particularly obligated to. As much more attention as I pay to foreign affairs than I used to, however, economy, "global warming," and general political philosophy are issues I am much more excited about and enjoy writing about. I agree with Ron Paul on certain aspects of our foreign policy. In particular I believe we are probably too interventionist. I think there has to be a way we can impose our military might without actually physically occupying countries ad infinitum. I believe that if our dollar were real, and if our economy were suitably strong, all nations would be forced to bow to us economically, and the use of force would largely be unnecessary, irrational theocracies excluded of course. Perhaps we have been interventionist for so long that this train of thought seems ludicrous, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe that it is possible.
However, I disagree with Ron Paul's nonsensical explanation of his own foreign policy as not being isolationist.
(Excerpt) Read more at organizedexploitation.blogspot.com ...
Ron Paul bashing ping.
It’s funny how so many self-proclaimed conservatives are vehemently against an interventionist domestic policy while clamoring for an interventionist foreign policy.
... and up in the nursery a perturbed little bird is popping out to say...
That would fit better anyway.
Is it interventionist to not want to deal with unfree countries and to give verbal support for freedom?
The United States would likely not exist but for the interventionism of the Dutch and French. If we think our freedom is connected to others being free, what does that tell us about what our foreign policy should promote?
The statement reeks in leftist stereo typing and hyperbole.
...wishing to see some concrete examples
American isolationists are perfectly content with allowing the rest of the world to be engulfed and to live in tyranny, while thinking we would remain free. Defending this nation with blood will be replaced with sending a "letter of marquis". That ought to show em...send them a letter, then threaten them with one of the two submarines that a President Ron Paul would scale us down to.
Isolationism is suicide.
I fully agree.
However, as a Patrick O’Brien fan, I can’t help but correct one point. I think you meant to say “letter of marque”.
Yes...that’s what I meant to spell...thanks
I don’t know. A “letter of Marquis de Sade” might produce an interesting response...
Verbal support for freedom and liberty is fine, but "deal[ing]" with other countries -- i.e., military or other intervention -- is improper and beyond the scope of the United States government's permissible actions under the Constitution.
The United States would likely not exist but for the interventionism of the Dutch and French. If we think our freedom is connected to others being free, what does that tell us about what our foreign policy should promote?
The French monarchy was bankrupted in its support of the American revolution.
Is the U.S. not a Constitutional republic any more, or do you think the U.S. should voluntarily bankrupt itself in the name of "freedom" (or, rather, the pursuit of the globalist policies of Wilson, Roosevelt, and other early twentieth-century "progressives")?
At this point, I suggest that you give more than a cursory read of John Quincy Adam's July 4, 1821 remarkably prescient (in hindsight, that is) speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, a transcript of which was posted by FReeper KDD here but can also be found here.
Stop using logic. The paleo hate threads are for name calling and thorazine pictures.
Improper in what respect? Morally? Surely not in most people's eyes. Do you also consider it improper to help a child that is being beaten by their parent, which is also a matter of sovereignty?
As for being outside the scope of the U.S. Constitution, the POTUS is given the power of diplomacy, and the Congress is given the power of war. So although you can argue about the Constitutionality of covert ops etc., you cannot state that "dealing" with other countries is beyond the scope of the U.S. Constitution. It is just factually untrue.
The French monarchy was bankrupted in its support of the American revolution.
Not really. What the French spent on support of the Americans was but a small portion of their budget.
Is the U.S. not a Constitutional republic any more, or do you think the U.S. should voluntarily bankrupt itself in the name of "freedom" (or, rather, the pursuit of the globalist policies of Wilson, Roosevelt, and other early twentieth-century "progressives")?
The U.S. Republic should pursue the interests of the United States within keeping of our underlying principles. How many free Republics have threatened us in our history? How many autocracies have threatened us? Your underlying argument is that we should do nothing until directly attacked. The majority of people in this Republic disagree with you and vote accordingly. Temperance is certainly required and you're welcome to entreat others to agree with isolationism. However, your assertion that only your view is Constitutional is incorrect.
At this point, I suggest that you give more than a cursory read of John Quincy Adam's July 4, 1821 remarkably prescient (in hindsight, that is) speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, a transcript of which was posted by FReeper KDD here but can also be found here.
JQA was a brilliant man. But the world of 1821 favored a more isolationist approach. Britain and France (the super powers) were already moving to a fully Republican system and the United States could not be readily threatened by any other major power. That said, Canada and Mexico remained deep concerns. Simply put, in 1821 it was in our best interest to avoid foreign entanglements because we were a weak player, had little chance of swaying others and a great chance of being caught up in others concerns.
JQA's father certainly well knew the real threat posed to the United States by major and minor powers alike and sought to build a strong navy to deal with them over there, not here. A navy to project power, not an army to react to it.
There is a lot of agreement on the Right concerning the limited nature that involvement should generally take, however, very few read the Constitution the way you apparently do.
Stop using logic. The paulbots can not stand it.
Simply feeling "threatened" is an excessively vague and thus insufficient justification to go to war against another State. In fact, unless the other State commits an act of war against the U.S. first, it makes the U.S. the aggressor power.
Do you also consider it improper to help a child that is being beaten by their parent, which is also a matter of sovereignty?
Do you consider it proper to, as an agent of the state, enter families' homes and monitor their behavior, simply to ensure that they are not beating their children?
After all, you would be accomplishing some good, right?
Do you feel sufficiently threatened by Iran's nuclear intentions?
Or, are you content to sit back and wait to be bombed or black-mailed?
My answer to that question would be wholly irrelevant, since I prefer to form opinions based on rational, objective facts rather than potentially irrational, subjective feelings.
Or, are you content to sit back and wait to be bombed or black-mailed?
I will not presume someone guilty of something that they have not done, or, rather, at minimum, that there is no publicly available evidence to indicate that they have done so...nor will I attempt to predict the future and assume that such predictions are true with any reasonable measure of certainty or accuracy.
I assume then you'd act...
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.