Posted on 01/05/2009 9:27:52 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Last week I discussed our worsening economic situation and the fact that there are very few options for the new administration to improve things in the long run. The same is not true on the foreign policy front. Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration. Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. I've often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback. The current administration's foreign policy, I'm afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation's recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.
Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.
We should follow the foreign policy advice of the Founders – friendship and commerce with all nations. One positive step would be to end our destructive embargo of Cuba, which deprives our farmers of a market just 90 miles from US shores while strengthening the Communist regime. We've seen 50 years of statist restrictions not accomplish anything. A change is needed. Other countries should decide how to govern themselves. Even if we don't necessarily approve, it's none of our business. If other people foolishly choose to live under statist experimental regimes, they need to fail in their own right, and not have us as a scapegoat. We need to focus on our own affairs.
However, the pressures exerted on our leadership from the military industrial complex and big business is not in favor of peace or freedom, or especially nonintervention. Intervention is big business. Defense contracts topped $300 billion last year, and total spending on war and our overseas empire is up to $1 trillion per year. That represents a lot of people earning a living off of war and conquest. But rather than adding to our economy, all of this money is taken from the economy in order to wage war and destruction. Imagine if those resources were put to creative, productive use here at home!
We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible. We need to bring our troops home, and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction. The smartest thing we could do is admit we don't know all the answers to all the world's problems. If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it. Economically – we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year! The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this. But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen.
He does make a good point here.
*dons flame-retardant suit*
.
He does make a good point here. *dons flame-retardant suit*
Ron Paul could double his popularity by giving up on this isolationism bit.
Isolationism has been dead since the 1930s, or even earlier. There are far too many nutcases and fanatics in the world for them to ever leave us alone again.
This leaves three alternatives: move the USA to another planet; kill everyone else on this planet; or put up walls around the US and kill everybody who approaches them, and wait for the inevitable day when they figure out a way to get weapons over that wall we can’t stop.
There isn't an enterprise that conservatives have confidence in the government's ability to run, except our interventionist management of foreign governments. Neo-cons are the cancer eating the Republican party.
It becomes our business the moment these regimes threaten us, our allies and our vital interests.
An Ayatollah sending around terrorists and a Saddam annexing oil-rich neighbours ARE our business.
You must have a perverted definition of isolationism.
Very right, but beside moral issues, the more compelling are the actual threat these terrorist regime pose(d) to US. Two taken down... something Bush can brag about (even though he has little else to be proud of).
Congo and Zimbabwe next. Jump on the bandwagon while you can.
Indeed, they are. And the truth is this: the true neo-conservatives are really nothing more or less than people who USED to be liberal Democrats but who left the Democrat fold when McGovern started taking the DNC in an isolationist direction.
On domestic policy, the neo-con movement is socially liberal.
So you get what we have today: a GOP that is infested with RINO’s.
War isn’t expensive, by comparison to what we’ve done after wars. We could kill nutcases and lunatics on the cheap. It is all this “enforced peace” that costs money.
Consider the amount of money we spent crushing the Nazis vs. the amount of money we’ve spent on maintaining a force structure in Germany since 1948.
We should withdraw our troops from Europe post-haste. We’ve been doing nothing more or less than subsidizing Europe. They’ve had the luxury of spending their tax monies on all sorts of social welfare, because they have not had to pay for their own defense. If we withdraw and pull that money back home, the EU won’t be quite so high-handed with us - because they’ll have to make some hard choices.
The Europeans don’t like us. So let’s leave. The South Koreans don’t like us. So let’s leave.
We should give all of these sad-sack whiners about US ‘hegemony’ what they want: an isolationist US. And when they get stepped on, our response should be “Golly. That looks like it hurt. Put some ice on it.”
But then again, Ron Paul is just "an isolationist kook" who doesn't understand national defense, right?... sigh...
“We should withdraw our troops from Europe post-haste. We’ve been doing nothing more or less than subsidizing Europe. They’ve had the luxury of spending their tax monies on all sorts of social welfare, because they have not had to pay for their own defense. If we withdraw and pull that money back home, the EU won’t be quite so high-handed with us - because they’ll have to make some hard choices.”
Excellent point, and one I’ve pointed out to my Dutch brother-in-law for some time. It’s easy to condemn others for military action when you haven’t a clue about defense.
The only thing that would concern me is the possibility of war breaking out eventually....perhaps the formation of the EU would prevent this....or would the centralized government actually make things worse if they were left to their own defense? IDK....
“A policy of non-participation in international economic and political relations.”
It used to be that a couple of oceans and the Monroe Doctrine would keep them from our shores. But they couldn’t, they can’t, and they won’t leave us alone. Even President Grant had to act to keep the French out of Mexico and off our border.
Right now, China is building a deep water port in the Caribbean, it controls both sides of the Panama Canal, and is wheeling and dealing with every tin horn South American El Supremo they can.
They figure that by attacking and destroying Bremerton and San Diego, by some means, they will have neutralized the US Pacific fleet. And they are very clear about having to “distract” America with a disaster to do so as well. They want the Pacific to be their ocean, not ours.
Yeah, go hide somewhere and ignore the world, full, as it is, of murderous scoundrels, pirates, dictators, conquerors, fanatics and criminals. But don’t expect them to do the same. Ever.
War is going to break out in Europe soon, and it will be a war of Islam vs. the socialist twinks running the place. Unless we want to be in the middle of that, we ought leave.
Either the Europeans will decide that they prefer life to their high-sounding ideals, or they’ll be killed en masse. If we try to stop the Muslims from taking over, we’ll be stabbed in the back by the Europeans. If we allow the Muslims to take over and kill the Europeans, then we’ll have a clear field of fire where we can kill them without recrimination from socialist twinks and academic pecksniffs.
We could solve the Chinese problem very simply, without firing a shot.
Quit sending them money.
Trouble is, the people in DC have gotten us into a position where the “free trade uber alles” rules the day - even to our demise.
Want to take on China and kill the minimum number of people? Then go to DC/NYC and kill some economists - especially the ones that infect the GOP’s foreign policy thinking with the idea that free trade will make dictatorial countries into western democracies. A loonier idea I’ve not yet encountered.
We could kill no more than about 100 people here in the US and then re-establish some common sense in our trade policies that would de-fang China without needing to get into a military engagement. We already are seeing just how sensitive the Chinese economy is to a decline in US consumer spending. Now extrapolate that to a situation where China has no market in the US for all their crap - and they go back to the 1970’s in foreign influence.
Sadly, we’re now addicted to their purchase of our debt.
It’s going to be a long road out of this quagmire.
Ron Paul's electoral appeal seems confined to isolationists, neo Nazi's and 9-11 truthers.
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.