Posted on 11/06/2011 8:53:22 PM PST by This Just In
The earmarks issue is bs.
I’m sure we’ve been over and over on this dozens of times.
Perry Operative Chris Wilson Accuses Cain Of Sexual Harassment…To Politico, Of Course
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2804047/posts
earmarks don’t increase spending.
the earmarks discussion is only “who decides” - the executive branch or the legislative branch.
We haven't bombed the $hit out of Iran yet, so maybe that's what we should do.
Maybe we haven't bombed enough countries yet.
It SHOULD work, because it usually does.
They'll get the message eventually.
I dunno, the bombing part seems to work pretty well, except we stop it too soon, and then stupidly hang around when it's over.
To add: I guess that results from the “Powell Doctrine,” which absurdly requires an “exit strategy” more complicated than “your country is no longer a threat to us.”
Time was, way back when, we just fought a war to win it. Now we don't. Pi$$es me off.
Well I don’t know. That whole Japan thing put the brakes on some things.
As if “friendship” with Iran’s going to endear us to Iranians. Yeah, you could fill the Library of Congress with volumes of history books chronicling examples of “friendship is solution” deals. /s
That was my first reaction.
Sorry, late reply, but in short it is unclear what the United States gains from various foreign engagements that go beyond keeping the oceans open and deterring military attack on the US.
A United States with guarded borders, a strict immigration policy and a strong military would not need to travel around to various hellholes to engage in “nation building”, etc. If need be, the policy could change if some other player was making a go at world domination.
So, that was the case in brief. Unlike Paul, there is no need to pretend that the Iranian government is reasonable. An isolationist US would just sell Israel weapons and give them a free hand to do what needs to be done. Instead, the non-isolationist US has just handed over Iraq on a silver platter to the Iranians. Nice.
Ron Paul says one crack-pot statement after another, and his drones not only ignore it, but make excuses for it. Ron Paul has extended his hands to the Mullah and Ayatollahs of Iran, not the Israelis. Ron Paul is the Jihad's Useful Idiot.
The Islamists in Iran wish to thank Ron Paul and his dead-ender supporters.
“Isolationism” could mean many things. The Ron Paul approach is (in my view) indeed dangerous, and more importantly, morally blind, there you will have no disagreement from me.
Like any policy, for “Isolationism” to be workable, it needs to be built on a moral foundation, and to be non-dogmatic and capable of responding to a changing world. You are entirely correct to note that, for instance, cutting off trade with the rest of the world would be the wrong thing to do if one wishes to preserve the US standard of living.
Nor would it be wise to cut off the supply of arms to our friends and allies around the world. Nor would it be wise to disarm the US.
However, the basic attitude of attempting to isolate the US from threats and dangers, instead of attempting to manage every troublespot in the world actively, is probably sound.
On such basic observations about the limits of isolation, a sound isolationism that enhances US security, and reduces the costs associated with “world management” could be built. My vision of an “isolated” US, for instance, would mean:
- Not having middle-eastern flight school students running around the US (and into US buildings).
- Not allowing massive unskilled and / or illegal immigration into the US.
- Not attempting to micro-manage the politics and societies of the Middle East and Africa through warfare and nation building.
- Not keeping troops garrisoned in countries that can obviously provide their own security, such as South Korea and Germany.
In practice, a more “isolationist” US would be focused on policing US borders and immigration instead of invading Iraq while attempting to reform Afghan society, conducting drone strikes in Yemen and bombing Islamists into power in Libya.
Sadly, the Isolationism championed by Ron Paul is both morally blind and dogmatic. Isolationism deserves a better class of champion.
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.