Paul's Foreign Policy - Too Extreme?

[ignoranceisntbliss]

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.

Careful what you wish for:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2301756762339435723

 

[Liberty Star]

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.

That's RP's philosophical view, in practice his policy will end over-extension of FP and that will be step in right direction. Practical consideration may not allow everything he advocates executed to the letter but principles his views are based on are very sound and will help turn our FP back to the minimal interventionism when absolutely necessary for self-defense unlike current purposeless overly interventionist policies.

RP is right.

 

[Cleaner44]

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.

I don't know how long you have been studing our foriegn policy but I am going to side with Ron Paul and his expertise on this matter.

 

[CitizenPlain]

Is averting bankruptcy too extreme?

The situation is just that dire. As the Asian and Canadian stock
markets showed today, the World economies will follow the Us down.

It's during bad times that World leaders will make very dumb and
dangerous choices.

I'd rather see our stretched out military drawn back in a safe manner
than in chaos. We would hate to lose some of our nuclear weapons to--?

 

[haigh]

How could a base of 10,000+ men be a deterrent to a madman with access to nukes? It's more likely the base would be a target. No base, no target.

A madman may pick a civilian population center and no base is likely to stop him. A fraction of the budget spent on large armies is probably better spent on human intelligence to prevent this.

If you visit a civil war fort you see a defense built of 20 foot thick brick walls, and you know that was done before airplanes.

Likewise in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles with GPS accuracy and armed predator drones able to be flown via satellite from a world away, the idea of thousands of troops scattered all over the world is becoming anachronistic. It’s funding is more rooted in inertia and special interests than in America’s defense.

I'm not saying there is no role for troops, but the way we think about them today may be more rooted in a 20th century view of war, than it should be.

The police duty our troops are carrying out in Iraq is a good example of the misuse of our brave men.

 

[dvictr]

TROLL

go read and learn about libertarianism

 

[NMCB3]

Bring the boys home. Europe,Japan, Israel, the Arab states, Taiwan, and the rest of them can pay for their own defense. I want my f-ing freedom back.

 

[LSUiLike]

Tactically we could just strengthen our borders and defense and intelligence. If some mad man started military invasions, we would take a lot of interest in that, especially if it directly affects our tactical national defense. But there are other countries out there that can swing back.

What I'm confused about is why Bush didn't follow Al-Qaeda into Pakistan.

 

[AlbemarleNC0003]

What I'm confused about is why Bush didn't follow Al-Qaeda into Pakistan.

We propped up Musharaf. He would lose all power if we overruled him and went in.

If you want to know if this is too extreme, read what Ronald Reagan had to say about Vietnam in 1964.

A Time for Choosing

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum.

 

[LSUiLike]

We propped up Musharaf. He would lose all power if we overruled him and went in.

I understand, but what does it say that we chose not to continue to pursue Al-Qaeda for an attempt at stability in the region. Pakistan obviously has no control over the region where Al-Qaeda was able to regroup, so whatever stability we were hoping our money would buy seems to be a pipe dream. We should have been unrelenting in our efforts to eliminate Al-Qaeda.

 

[jdmetz]

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.

Here's an idea - if a country *wants* the US to have a military base on their land, they pay the US to have one there. If the host country were subsidizing the base so that it didn't cost me as a taxpayer money, I wouldn't mind it as much.

 

[SeanEdwards]

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.

As a US taxpayer, I don't give a damn what Poland wants. I don't want my tax money wasted on running a global military empire.

And a missile shield? Please get serious. That's a shield to protect defense companies from having to compete in the open market and produce products that people actually want. It's not a shield against missile attack.