Paul's Foreign Policy - Too Extreme?

[DFF]

I'm 100% behind RP immediately withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

But withdrawing every single troop from every single U.S. base on the planet?

No and no.

IMO, this is a dangerous proposition which would jeopardize our national security.

And before anybody starts yelling "Troll! Troll!"; I promise, I'm not.

This just happens to be one area of Paul's platform I don't fully agree with.

I mean, I could go for some bases being shut down - maybe 50% - but not all.

 

[bucfish]

Well watch this video and then tell me why should We be arrogant enough to think we are wanted or needed in other countries. Our troops would be better off defending OUR borders and patrolling our Seas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELjgVq6GtPA

 

[MicroBalrog]

why should We be arrogant enough to think we are wanted or needed in other countries. Our troops would be better off defending OUR borders and patrolling our Seas.

Take Poland, for example.

The Polish government - elected in a free election and expressing the will of the majority of Poles - wans the US there. That's as much indication that the US is wanted and needed as you're going to get.

And the base there serves to enhance US national security via the missile shield.

 

[DFF]

Well watch this video and then tell me why should We be arrogant enough to think we are wanted or needed in other countries. Our troops would be better off defending OUR borders and patrolling our Seas.

Like I said, I'm all for getting out of Iraq in double quick time.

Same goes for South Korea and a few other countries.

The thought of bailing on Saudi Arabia however makes me shiver.

They're the world's leading producers of oil; and if the U.S. stopped providing them with security, an opportunistic country might come along, invade them and if that country took control; they would have a stranglehold over the global economy.

On the flip side though, I realize our bases on Saudi soil are what provoked the radicals leading up to 9/11.

But from an economic standpoint, our bailing on the Saudi's could prove FAR more dangerous.

Then again, Israel has a potent military. And if we totally pulled out of SA, they got invaded, and Israel came to their rescue; it would galvanize the entire region.

So I dunno. It's a confusing situation.

 

[Mini-Me]

DFF, also consider this: If our oil supply was cut off, that would be a buttload of incentive to become independent from foreign oil or even focus on alternative energy, wouldn't it? Right now, our huge oil corporations are not only directly favored by the government and the Department of Energy, but more money goes into protecting their profits through military interventionism.

Besides, we get most of our oil from Venezuela anyway (unless this has changed?), despite Chavez's hatred of the Bush admin and American imperialism.

 

[DFF]

That sounds good on paper, but the reality is we're still a long way from getting off the oil tit.

The U.S. can't just flip a switch and go "Allright, we're going green."

Energy independence is gonna take time.

So in the meantime, we needs the oil.

Regarding our current suppliers, I think it goes like this:

Canada #1
Saudi Arabia #2
Mexico #3
Venezuela #4

EDIT: Y'know our main problem isn't crude oil supply. It's that a new oil refinery hasn't been built in the U.S. since the early 80's. Why? The EPA.

 

[emk]

I'm an American living in Germany. The US has 50,000 troops in Germany. Trust me, Germans don't need America's help defending their country. The US can leave. It's really OK. Close your eyes, breathe deeply and trust me.

 

[DFF]

Well, when you're talking about shutting down bases, you've got to consider which ones are of strategic importance in terms of counter attacks against potential threats to the U.S. mainland and also to our allies.

Those which fall outside of this category are the ones we can get rid of.

Now, I'm no military guy by any means, but considering Germany's proximity to an ever-more-communist-by-the-day Russia w/20,000+ Nukes; I don't think closing that particular base would be too wise.

 

[emk]

Well, when you're talking about shutting down bases, you've got to consider which ones are of strategic importance in terms of counter attacks against potential threats to the U.S. mainland and also to our allies.

Those which fall outside of this category are the ones we can get rid of.

Now, I'm no military guy by any means, but considering Germany's proximity to an ever-more-communist-by-the-day Russia w/20,000+ Nukes; I don't think closing that particular base would be too wise.

Germany has 250,000 soldiers and 7,000 battle tanks. Don't you think all of Europe together can handle Russia? Do you SERIOUSLY think Russia is going to -invade- Europe? That's pretty damn far fetched considering they just opened a new oil pipeline that goes to Berlin.

 

[DFF]

No. I don't think Russia's going to attack Europe nor the U.S.

That's crazy -- for now.

I was thinking more along future lines, like, what if some madman came into power?

And he inherited a nuclear arsenal which rivals our own.

So, for this reason, I'd keep that base...just in case.

 

[youngbuck]

No, his foreign policy is NOT too extreme. It's exactly dead on in my opinion. I just got Ron Paul's book A Foreign Policy of Freedom. I suggest you get it too

 

[RonPaulalways]

The only bases I want the US to maintain are those in Guam, and really all the US needs is nuclear missiles there.

 

[FreedomRings]

Why not ask the Germans?

http://payvand.com/news/07/mar/1347.html

"Some 48 percent of Germans say America is the greatest danger to world peace.

...

In other related news, some 72 percent of Germans reject the deployment of US anti-missile bases in Europe which Washington alleges is aimed at intercepting incoming ballistic missiles from so-called 'roguestates'."

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

No, I think what we need to focus on is SDI-style technology. We should be able to swat missiles out of the sky, but I'm not too worried about the Russians marching into Poland.

 

[RonPaulalways]

Russians are not going to invade Europe. China invading Taiwan on the otherhand..

 

[Kludge]

Wouldn't this be the ultimate test of whether or not "terrorists" hate us for our freedom and prosperity?

On the flip side though, I suppose you could argue that Iraq invaded Kuwait for their prosperity. Maybe we'll have angry Panamanians invade us with home-made spears.

Russians are not going to invade Europe. China invading Taiwan on the otherhand..

So what if they do? Some monks die, and are oppressively ruled until they realize they could just fly out of the country since China's isn't nearly as much the "communist tyrants" we paint them. That goes for Russia too, whom McCain has already hinted that he'd bully when he gets into power.

 

[Paul4Prez]

I think we could safely bring our troops home from these wealthy and prosperous nations, which are more than capable of defending themselves:

United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
South Korea
Japan

I mean, come on. We can't afford it, and they can.

 

[DFF]

I think we could safely bring our troops home from these wealthy and prosperous nations, which are more than capable of defending themselves:

United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
South Korea
Japan

Truth be told, our bases have little if anything to do with protecting the countries their inside.

Their main value lies with their proximity to the Middle East, China and Russia, which subsequently gives the U.S. a marked tactical advantage against any potential aggression.

Additionally, they serve as a deterrent to aggression. Again, this is due to proximity.

But, we've got to start making cuts or in order to stave off an economic crisis.

So oughtta this short list (and keep in mind we have 700 bases to work with); I'd keep the U.K., Germany, and Japan; and shut down Italy and South Korea.

EDIT: This fresh-off-the-press article illustrates my point regarding Russia: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22743091/. Clearly, this is just saber rattling on Russia's part, however, it still raises an eyebrow or two.

 

[Xenophage]

Germany and Europe can hold its own militarily against any threat that is aligned against it. South Korea's military is massively more powerful than the North's. Japan has no enemies, and should be expected to pay for their own national defense. Why is it our duty? Taiwan I feel a little differently about, but there are plenty of places around the world we can come home. I don't think Ron Paul is going to immediately bring home all the troops everywhere around the world anyway. It'll be a phased sort of thing, and it'll require looking at each individual case, and the generals will let him know exactly what bases, if any, are really important to our national security.

Remember that "700 bases" is really "700 locations around the world where there are U.S. troops stationed." That includes foreign embassies, consulates, etc. The actual number of military bases is something closer to 130. You can look it up online.

 

[ignoranceisntbliss]

And the base there serves to enhance US national security via the missile shield.

The missile "shield" has nothing to do with defense and truely represents offense. Putin warns that it will cause nuclear war instead of prevent it. He warns he will promptly attack installations. This logical move would serve to rally the mindless masses against the "Reds" and would have devastating effects with the "how dare they react to our tyranny" fools.

All that and the technology hardly even works. All that and we cant even afford it.

Its all about creating a new Cold War scenario to fill the void that is the American People coming to realize how big of a laughable delusion the "War on Terror" is. The "War on Terror" was only to fill the void of the collapse of the Cold justification of perpetual War via American Empire.

Its all a big joke.

Watch my SIG film and see the War on Terror completely annihilated and then see the candidates proclaiming how they intend to launch us down the New Cold War path of never ending war.