Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 10/14/2009 8:56:48 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.
A propos of nothing, won’t it be a happy day when the oil under those chuckleheads runs out? Then we can go back to ignoring them, and they can go back to living in tents.
Ah, B_H, the Constituion is one of those things we here at FR like to bleat about, but we’d crap our pants if the Government actually operated by its rules.
But didn’t George Washington and many others warn us about becoming entangled in foreign issues (wars and squabbles)?
There are too many misconceptions about Afghanistan and Pakistan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/
According to him, yes.
http://buchanan.org/blog/middle-american-news-interviews-presidential-hopeful-rep-ron-paul-870
As far as Iran, we need to simply back off. We need sail our navy away from their shores. Sanctions are strengthening their extremist leaders, not hurting them. Our harsh rhetoric helps inflame nationalistic sentiment among a young and energetic population that would otherwise be pro-American. If we trade with Iran and have open communication, their people are likely to vote [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad out, and elect a much more favorable government.
On North Korea
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-06/ron-paul-north-korea-is-not-a-threat-to-the-us/
Instead of either attacking people or giving them money, just offer out friendship. If they want to trade with us, fine.
(there are many quotes like this but most I'm finding are on sites note welcome here like Lew Rockwell..)
Almost as misquoted as Eisenhower’s ‘military industrial complex’ quote. In Washington’s speech, he was addressing a very specific conflict between Spain and England. He also mentioned in the same speech honoring treaties and holding threats to account.
Or we just have the intestinal fortitude to use our own. Until then, it is naive to not acknowledge the interdependence.
So if your neighbor fails to have his pit bull vacinated for rabies and then fails to keep it under control and it gets loose goes down to the local playground mauls your child it’s your fault for letting the child out of your yard?
Yet he was fine with supporting to use the Authorization of the Use of Force in his vote on Afghanistan (not a declaration of war) of course, then he spoke against it, then he supported it when comparing to Iraq.. he went back and forth on that. I noticed you didn't bold this:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
Breach of treaties and truces are 'offenses against the Laws of Nations' and congress is given a separate clause to 'define and punish' said offenses.
no!, the pit bull must be killed as it is a real threat.
ping
I agree with killing those that would harm us. But, do we not owe it to our soldiers and their civilians to go in with complete force and end it quickly and as efficiently as possible, short of that, should we not leave?
Back to your analogy of the pit bull. You would not approach the pit bull that just mauled your child and taunt or attack it half heartedly, you would terminate it.
We agree there, but then that makes you not agree with Doctor Paul, who thinks we don’t have to do anything, accept stay home and guard our ‘fence’.
That should be the decision of the Generals and commanders how to handle it. Going in with 'full force' sometimes requires greater logistics and becomes a greater danger to our troops. A good analogy is one of the left's complaints about the 'under-armored' military vehicles in the initial invasion of Iraq. The left likes to say we didn't go in with the tools we needed, but the commanders ordered lighter vehicles to move quicker and not get bogged down in the sand, thus putting them at greater danger. This is something that the commanders should decide, not politicians like Obama or Paul or anyone else. Both are calling for different courses of action but neither are asking "what do our commanders think is BEST?" They are just playing philosophy games.
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.