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.
LOL! Great tagline.
Take away electric lights, gasoline, and food stores and list all the differences of now vs 200 years ago.
Hint, there isn't any real differences.
Yeah, except for the pesky Atomic, chemical and Bio weapons, you are right...
Yes, and he’ll be home for Christmas this year. So, we will have much to give thanks to our Lord for.
That only added the speed at which to kill. You could still kill and burn entire areas and nature could still do it better. Nice try but you failed the test.
I’d have to agree.
And it’s amazing how people on FR will change their tune when it comes to various issues, or rights.
Suddenly, although the most powerful thing during the Rev was the occasional 18-lb siege cannon, suddenly it doesn’t matter that things have changed when it comes to weapons rights.
I prefer to remain consistent.
I do believe the Founders (particularly Washington, the pure genius of the bunch) believed in what we call “isolationism”, rightly so. Washington’s speech was required knowledge at 1 time. And the general principle is sound that 1 should try not to involve oneself in things not involving them.
May I also note Washington was a big fan of standing armies and navies. He was well aware what happens when “armies” are constantly going through turnstiles.
That said, the Founders were no slouches, and did not shrink from striking at those who seemed to be threatening them.
Also, it’s all moot now no matter what: we’re in Iraq. You can’t just pull out tomorrow. The Founders would agree, I’m sure.
Just a light hearted attempt at humor on my part. I didn’t really figure you made those up.
My light hearted attempt at humor apparently failed.
Sheesh...
Anyways, there was never a formal declaration on either side in the first Barbary war. The Pasha whacked down a US flag and screamed a lot about not getting his payoff. Jefferson sent the navy and informed congress, who told him to order the commanders to take whatever action was necessary...
Sounds familiar...
As far as expeditionary forces, you are right, to a point. The troops sent in in WWI were the first to FORMALLY be called that. The military sent expeditionary forces out all the time. What do you think they sent in to the west after the Indians in their territory. Any force that leaves the borders of the homeland could be defined as such.
But nature do it on its own and we a saddened by the loss.
The evil of man with great weapons is preventable. And don’t even begin to try an equate 17th century warfare to what we have now, you would be laughed out of any war college...
will do, left out a word.
I ask that because you have bomb Iran in your tag, and I have seen your post on other RP threads. Your tag is a line that would be opposite of RPs position, but the arguments that the things are the same now days (which they are not)would lend credence to his position.
That is the big point that modern weapons, which have increased the speed of the kill, are in the hands of those with no regrets at using them.
Given that, a proactive military solution seems in order. These are not wooden sailing ships that we can see sailing into the harbor and be alert to, but missiles and small bombs that fit in an area much smaller that a platoon of Redcoats and can do several hundred times the damage with little that the victims can do to defend against the results.
Just confused a bit on your point I guess.
Everyone read:
What an interesting comment, which conveniently ignores any discussion of the actual history of America's entry into WWI. I used that example because it is quite illustrative of the abject stupidity of Dr. Paul's position, in that WWI showed the impracticality of "neutrality" in a world where wars can literally span the globe.
Your "globalist vision" assertion is not only irrelevant to the topic, but actually misleading. In fact, during the first years of the war, Wilson very firmly held to a policy of neutrality, to the extent that the US made absolutely no preparations for war. A better example of "avoiding European entanglements" would be difficult to find. Wilson actually enacted Ron Paul's policy, to our very great detriment.
And thus we were unprepared when war was forced upon us. In case you had forgotten, the war was forced upon us for two reasons. First, the Germans resumed a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, which resulted in the sinking of several American ships. Second, the Germans attempted to entice Mexico to ally with Germany, in exchange for American territory. (See The Zimmermann Telegram.)
It is a bit much -- and incredibly lazy -- to lay those events at the feet of Wilson's "globalist vision," which in any case wasn't apparent until after the War (and it was never enacted, in any case).
Well, that would be rather true, I suppose. Nonetheless, it was seen as British and therefore the object of their attacks.
Let’s just not forget Canada was a COLONY, no matter whose it was. They like to act like they were innocent victims of imperialist wars into “their country”, but they were not their own country, not for another 50 years (and that’s arguable even now). That’s the main point. ;-)
I think the problem with that is that there was reasonable reason (how’s that for redundancy) to go to war. There was even evidence.
The “isolationist” view, in purest form, means not simply not going to war with those who haven’t done anything, but not planting enclaves in places that have no interest for you, per se (German bases, etc), and so on.
Just because you don’t branch out doesn’t mean you have to be “weak” in readiness. The military wasn’t “weak” because of isolationism; it was weak because of a long overreaching fear of standing armies being used against citizenry.
heh heh.. no worries, although, maybe i should make some more of those up, I can think of some good ones:
When Paul gets sick, he doesn’t take medicine, he issues letter of Marque on the disease.
:)
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.