Posted on 10/08/2007 10:16:52 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.
If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
Rep. RON PAUL (BOB LAPREE) American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.
A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
So with another Cold War brewing how would a Ron Paul type handle that?
Ron Paul would adopt the same foreign policy as America’s Founding Fathers . . .
. . . independence from the British Empire.
“No sovereign but King Jesus!”
Wooden ships are also very affordable.
Even if he crashes and burns it will be after a decent running. Ron Paul however is a “never had a prayer”.....except of course in the minds of the tin foil brigade.
The documentation is this article, written by Ron Paul himself.
I quote:
"American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits."
What more do you need than the man's own words in his own opinion piece?
That means that we would not trade freely with nations that do not wish to. Trade embargos would then be appropriate where other nations seek to restrict our access to their markets. That looks pretty well qualified.
The sentence you reference talks of the United States - the sentence I referenced talks of US citizens.
You cannot have it both ways: either Ron Paul is the ultrafederalist that he claims to be - in which case he is saying that the United States as a political entity will engage in trade only with countries that trade freely with it, while he is also saying that this government cannot forbid its citizens to spend money "wherever" they choose and "not (be) told" that there are embargoes they have to honor.
Or, in the alternative, Ron Paul is not a federalist and his references to the United States and the citizens of the United States refer to a consolidated entity - in which case he contradicts himself, saying in one place that America will only engage in reciprocal trade and in another that there are no restrictions on trade and that Americans may spend money "wherever."
You cannot have it both ways: either Ron Paul is the ultrafederalist that he claims to be - in which case he is saying that the United States as a political entity will engage in trade only with countries that trade freely with it, while he is also saying that this government cannot forbid its citizens to spend money "wherever" they choose and "not (be) told" that there are embargoes they have to honor.
The context is the United States, as a political entity, controlling what nations it's citizens may trade with. It'll take more that comparing a couple of cherry-picked statements out of context to make a convincing argument.
That is manifestly not what the statement you quoted says and it completely contradicts the unequivocal statement I quoted - that US citizens will not be told that any nation is under embargo and that Americans may spend their money wherever they please.
Bullshit.
That is ultimately all a Ron Paul supporter can say when her hero's flaws are exposed and all her flim-flam arguments are exploded - pathetic and mindless vulgarity.
Thanks for conceding the debate in the least graceful way possible.
You're reading it in the context of looking for ammunition to attack him with because you don't like his foreign policy views.
He, weren’t you banned for being an idiot on another thread?
Fitting...
Thanksgiving 07' will have a special meaning I'm sure.
The problem with Paul is not so much his ideals, but how he handles what we’re in right now.
It is moot that we “should never have meddled with Iran”, e.g. It happened. That is long past. It’s also happened we are in Iraq now.
How do you handle being in Iraq now? Do you just say “we should never be involved” and simply pull out? If you’re going to pull out, do it methodically and over time in a well-planned fashion to reduce negative consequences of just pulling the rug out from under the situation there right now.
Sheesh...
I can not even begin to think that a group of men who risked death as traitors to the crown, with little experience, little hope and a lot of bravery would follow the path RP now espouses. They saw the entire British Empire as a threat to their way of life, do you think these guys would just hope for the best against a foe who could strike with little to no warning, potentially kill thousands of their countrymen and do so with no remorse.
Please, give me a break...
They would go anywhere they needed and kicked their ass.
*************
LOL!! Oh, baby. An instant FR classic. :)
Typing too fast...
I think it should be a tag line...
Um...huh?
Montreal was BRITISH.
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.