Posted on 06/11/2007 9:53:43 PM PDT by Naldie
I posted this as a reply in another thread already. I appologize for posting twice, but thought there were likely going to be alot of replies, and it should be in it's own thread.
The US was involved the Middle East since Democrat FDR made us a problem to them. Why do the terrorists care enough to plan an attack on the US?
I agree with pulling out of the middle east and letting them fight eachother. Then they'll all wish the US was thier ally agaist thier neighbors. Nixon and Kissinger took this strategy with Russia and China.
Staying out of both WWI and WWII longer than the rest of Europe was what turned the US into the superpower it became. While everyone else was using up thier resources fighting, we sold them goods and made them loans. Europe suffered and the US prospered. Now China's doing this to the US.
What's happened to the Republican Party? It used to be the party of minding our own business. They've totally bough into the "democratic", progressive, interventionist foreign policy platform. "the world has changed, we can't stay uninvolved, we need to spread our way of life" is exactly the view Wilson was selling, and the people eventually bought it. Which has gotten us into the mess we're in today.
Wilson, Democrat, Advocated globalisim and interventionism, takes US into WWI to defend our allies. Helps create the League of Nations and rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, takes the US into WWII because US is attacked, to fight Nazism, and fight Facism. Helps create United Nations. Begins US involvement in Middle East and US alliance with Suadi Arabia. Helps rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Truman, Democrat, takes US into Korea and the Cold War to defend our allies and to fight Communo-Fascism. Helps create NATO and rebuild Europe. Opposed by Republicans.
Eisenhower, Republican, former General, negotiates end of Korean War. Warns against having a powerful military. As an alternative to a strong military and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates building weapons for deterrance.
Johnson, Democrat, takes US into Viet Nam because US forces are attacked and to fight Communo-Fascism.
Nixon, Republican, takes US out of Viet Nam, opens dialog with Russia and China. As an alternative to the arms race and entering military conflicts with Communo-Fascists, he advocates economic competition.
Reagan, Republican, increases dialog with Russia. Ends Cold War through economic victory without ever sending troops to any Soviet country.
To quote President Reagan:
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
Were Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson the true conservatives? Were Washington, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan just wrong? Ron Paul voted to go after the terrorists who were involved in 9/11. He voted against granting the president authority to go into Iraq. He wants the troops home, to guard our borders.
George Washington defeated the British (the most powerful empire on Earth at that time) on American soil. To quote President Washington:
"avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.........The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible........Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it..."
How are we supposed to listen to advise about true conservatives from a true Libertarian, who is truly a Republican In Name Only?
Signed up just to post this dumb vanity?
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is indisguishable from Cindy Sheehan. Open borders, emasculate the the military, and blame America first. No thanks.
Some people just don't realize the world has changed significantly during the last 225 years. This is as kooky as the Taliban wanting to go back and live as if it was 800 AD. If the US did not get involved in WWII, the whole rest of the world today would be Nazi and Communist.
Gee,
What has happened to FR over the years?It use to be very conservative.
OK, you all have replied, and I feel it’s only fair I address your points:
.....................”Signed up just to post this dumb vanity?”...................
I’m interested in a keeping a free Republic. It seemed this site was too. I read things I wanted to respond to. So I signed up. If that’s offensive let me know. I’ll leave, but I don’t see how ignoring honest arguments help the cause of conserving the Republic that is our heritage.
..................”How are we supposed to listen to advise about true conservatives from a true Libertarian, who is truly a Republican In Name Only?”........
Is it Ron Paul thats abandoned our traditional values, or the politicians now in control of the Republican Party? He’s been elected ten terms as a Republican, and Reagan was a Paul supporter. Pual is not a Libertarian, he’s a supporter of the Constitution. The Libertarians backed him for President, but he split with that party over differences on policy.
..........”Ron Paul’s foreign policy is indisguishable from Cindy Sheehan. Open borders, emasculate the the military, and blame America first. No thanks.”.............
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home to guard and strengthen our borders. He doesn’t blame America, he blames the policies of the Government. If I said: “part of the reason crime goes up is beacause of we have more gun control laws”, Am I blaming Americans for the acts of criminals? Or blaming gun control?
As the first paragraph of Thomas Paines great AMERICAN booklet, “Common Sense”, states:
“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.”........
Wow. Sounds like something Reagan might have said. Hardly blame America first.
..............”Some people just don’t realize the world has changed significantly during the last 225 years.”...........
That’s exactly what Wilson, FDR, and all the progressives have been saying for 100 years. “The world’s different now, we’re all interconnected, we must go fight in these foreign causes”, and the Republicans opposed them.
Now the Democrats were right all along?
When did conservative change from meaning conservation of our Republican system the Founding Fathers pledged thier lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to establish, to conservation of the “progressive” foreign policies advocated by Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson?
...................”What has happened to FR over the years?It use to be very conservative.”..................
I’m new, so I can’t speak about FR. But I say, what’s happened to conservatives? Whats happened to the Republican Party? They used to be conservative.
Please taake a moment to think about it honesty: Does the policy of disarming the population breeds calls from unarmed victims for more gun control to stop crime? Doesn’t the gun violence that the unarmed victims can’t defend against play into the hands of gun control advocates?
Is there a chance that it’s the interventionist foreign policies of the progressives that bred the need for interventionist foreign policy? Are the Neo-Cons now playing into their hands by now taking the blame for starting the wars caused by progressive policies?
If so, then is it not worth considering: Why have the Neo-Cons parted from the tradional principles of our nation? Are they truly representing the Republican heritage of our country, or buying into the progressive system of internationalism dressed up as patriotism?
How does policing the world conserve the system of Republicanism and limited government of our forefathers?
I wanted to add, at the time Washinton spoke these words the British Empire, who would later burn Washington DC and the White House, were right across the border in Canada and sailing their ships in the waters off our shores. He fought and defeated them. Who knew better the risks this nation faced?
None the less, this was his farewell address, and his advice to our nation at one of it’s most precarious and dangerous periods in it’s history.
Post #2 stupid.
Because "Republican" and "Conservative" quit being synonyms about the time George H. W. Bush took office.
On the contrary.
As a firm believer in Constitutional government, Ron Paul understands that maintaining the integrity and security of the national borders is one of the few legitimate functions of the Fed...and that doing so is one of the few legitimate functions of a standing army.
Where’s Teddy’s “Big Stick” policy? Paul never talks of that.
Ok.
Please, give me some reasons why I should consider changing my views. I’ll consider them with reason and logic. I only ask the same from you.
I love this country enough that I’ve taken the time to read up on and study it’s heritage, the values, and beliefs the Founding Fathers fought ensure us. The current gang of politicians in DC aren’t it.
I thought FR was at its quota with Ron Paul groupies?
...........”Where’s Teddy’s “Big Stick” policy? Paul never talks of that.”...........
Our “big stick” is being whittled away as more and more of our troops and equipment are eaten up for foreign causes, and our debts are run up to pay for them. How are our military and defensive capabilities strengthened by using them up?
In addition, I believe Teddy Roosevelt was a proud progressive, who wanted to convert the Republican party into a progressive party. After experiencing a his Presidency, his party rejected him and nominated Taft when his term was up.
But he was a great inspiration and mentor to his nephew, Franklin, who took up the cause after him.
I invite you to read about it and correct me If I’m mistaken.
......”{Yawn...} Another cut-and run advocate who wants to surrender to the terrorists.”.....
Then you’re saying Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were right all along? The Republicans til Reagan left office were cut-and-runners?
Again: Give me some reasons why I should consider changing my views. I’ll consider them with reason and logic. And I ask the same from you.
I have to go to work, so I’ll make this my last post til tonight.
It is night where I am and I'm off to bed. Besides, I have presented my views repeatedly and Ron Paul fans tend to respond with insults.
Then you’re saying Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson were right all along? The Republicans til Reagan left office were cut-and-runners?
I said no such thing and you know it. I'm not talking about what people did in past situations; each one is different. In sort, to cut and run right now would be a disgraceful abomination and the results would be catastrophic.
No advocate of cut-and-run will get my support or my vote.
The general format of Free Republic is to post news stories and discuss them, not for each member to post their own editorials. Vanities should be posted sparingly and only if you have something extraordinary to say. For example, I have been a member for eight years, and have probably posted no more than 5 vanites. So to join up and immediately begin by posting a vanity is rather bad form. Moreover, you vanity really didn't say anything new. It was just a rehash of the standard libertarian/isolationist arguments put forth by Ron Paul, the Libertarian party, et. al. We've heard it all before.
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home to guard and strengthen our borders.
That's and utterly impractical defense policy in a modern world. You cannot prevent terrorist attacks by guarding our borders. You must be proactive, and go after your enemies where they live, organize, and train. You must disrupt their money supply. And you must make them and those that states that support and harbor them pay a high price for doing so.
If I said: “part of the reason crime goes up is because of we have more gun control laws”, Am I blaming Americans for the acts of criminals? Or blaming gun control?
You cannot separate the actions of the government from that of the people when it comes to foreign policy. The old saying that politics stop at the water's edge should be adhered to in times of peace. It is disloyal to the country not to do so during war, most especially when we have been attacked on our own soil. We are democratic republic, and the government is our representative in dealing with the rest of the world. It's actions are the actions of the American people. That's what it means to be a nation. It's a totally different situation than on domestic issues.
Even if you don't accept that argument, Paul is simply wrong about the current war and it's causes anyway. The jihadis are not attacking us because we overthrew the Iranian government fifty years ago, or because we have troops in the middle-east or any other actions of our government past, present or future. They are motivated by an evil aggressive ideology that calls for complete global domination; fundamentalist Islam. Their first step in that plan is to take over the middle-east, which would allow them to destroy the world economy.
When did conservative change from meaning conservation of our Republican system the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to establish, to conservation of the “progressive” foreign policies advocated by Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson?
Actually we support the foreign policies of presidents like Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon. None of them were isolationists. They all believed in standing by our allies, defeating our enemies around the world, and making no apolgies for pursuing our own national interests abroad.
Should the US have gotten involved in any way in WWII?
Be specific.
The people that just mindlessly quote Washington on this leave out that little underlined part above. In a modern global world, the liberty in "as we are now at liberty to do it" gets smaller and smaller.
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.