Replies

Your comments show that you do not understand traditional American foreign policy--which Ron Paul supports. It was never isolationist; but it certainly was not interventionist. That did not prevent Jefferson's teaching the Barbary Pirates a lesson, when they interfered with our shipping.

The basic principle is to treat others with respect; and expect respect back. But we also believed in "punishing the first insult."

For those who are interested, here is Washington's Farewell Address, which sets forth the principles. Or to put the matter into a contemporary perspective, here is the "Debate" I staged by putting George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address into juxtaposition with the key passages in Washington's address: Washington / Bush Debate.

William Flax

“traditional American foreign policy—which Ron Paul supports”

Wrong.
Ron Paul doesn't understand the basics of how the world work. He said we brought 911 on ourselves. He said on Thursday night that Iran is not a threat to us.
Ron Paul thinks like many leftists; that we can just stay home; fat and happy; and the world will be fine.
He is completely wrong.

As I said earlier; with his foreign policy; we be asking the Chinese permission to transit the Pacific.
Like it or not; the world is a jungle. The strong survive; the weak are conquered and become footnotes in history.

Just what IS it that you and paleoPaulie and these alleged advocates of what you imagine to be "traditional' American foreign policy "respect" about Ahmadinejad, the Iranian mullahs, Al Qaeda, and their fellow America-hating looneytunes? And what leads you to think that anything, other than our nuclear arsenal and a willingness to use it, will cause any of them to "respect" (cower in fear actually before) the US?

George Washington's opinions expressed more than two hundred years ago when the US was a defenseless infant nation protected only by oceans might be more relevant if he had been around to see what sort of nutcases this nation is up against. One of his subordinate officers, a subsequent POTUS of the early Virginia dynasty was James Monroe who, a couple of decades after Washington, warned Europe to keep its grubby paws off the Western Hemisaphere or else. Washington was a military officer as a British Army colonel in the French and Indian War and a respected general in the Revolution who would have been hanged if he had lost. That is not a very good analogy to paleoPaulie. The best analogy to the paleosurrenderman is Neville Chamberlain.

There is little wrong with interventionism intelligently applied. We do not need to be in Libya. There seems to be increasingly little purpose in being in Iraq or Afghanistan, since, like Vietnam, the craven politicians are determined to see to it that war is hobbled by bureaucracy and useless diployak rather than waged forcefully, effectively and spectacularly without the modern bureaucratic interference. What would Patton do without being interfered with by politicians?

All this touchy feely crap of Paul's about loving those who would nuke us when given half a chance while Ron Paul promotes a foreign policy of sitting around the old campfire roasting Smores while crooning Kumbaya with Ahmadinejad and every other America-hating savage is no solution for genuine conservatives.