People not understanding RP's foreign/ military policy.

[nicname]

I got into an argument ( a civil one) with my uncle. He says that RP's foreign policy is weak and invites attacks. I explain that isn't the case in the way we all usually do... blowback, occupation, thin spread forces, etc. He then replies that he still thinks it is weak and that a RP America wouldn't act until it is too late.

My response was (pretty much verbatim).

"In the US we have a supreme military intelligence, the CIA, and a million sattellites. Are you trying to tell me that we wouldn't have a real good idea of whether an real imminent threat to our safety was going on, Iran for instance? Ron Paul has said numerous time that if that was the case congress would declare war, we would go all out and obliterate any threats in minimal time and let them pick up their own rubble. What more do you want."

His response was something about we need to be in hostile areas because then we can keep tabs on them and fight them there before we have to fight them here.

It is a freaking cyclical argument, so frustrating.

 

[Aurave]

I apply the same logic your uncle uses in fp in my personal life. I just take my baseball bat and beat the shit out of random people who look at me funny on the street. Some of those people I beat down get angry and come looking for me later- proving they were dangerous and that I was correct all along.

 

[romacox]

It took them many years to understand Ron's economic policy. I hope it does not take that long to understand his foreign policy.

Here are some things that I use, and some understand, and some not.




Also the following article comes from the Heritage Foundation which is an organization most Conservatives adhere to.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics It explains that Progressives got a foothold in American Politics under Woodrow Wilson (which is exactly what we say), and their goal is to destroy the Constitution and the Republic.

But look what it says on Foreign policy"
______________________________
7. Foreign Policy

For the Founders, foreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property. Therefore, foreign policy was conceived primarily as defensive. Foreign attack was to be deterred by having strong arms or repulsed by force. Alliances were to be entered into with the understanding that a self-governing nation must keep itself aloof from the quarrels of other nations, except as needed for national defense. Government had no right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens to spread democracy to other nations or to engage in enterprises aiming at imperialistic hegemony.

The Progressives believed that a historical process was leading all mankind to freedom, or at least the advanced nations. Following Hegel, they thought of the march of freedom in history as having a geographical basis. It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.

The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:

[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.

Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."

Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body.
________________________

Then I ask them, "Who's policy are you advocating, the Founding Father's, or the progressive's?

I also have two videos in which Romney and Newt admit they are progressives. If you need that it is at the following link.
http://educatorssite.com/?p=809

 

[Travlyr]

Take a few minutes and read "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" by Ron Paul. Then you will be well armed with information to debunk their arguments.

For example, Ron Paul introduced legislation to stop funding Communist governments. The legislation did not make it out of committee, but Ron Paul is the only guy in congress saying that we should not be funding dictatorial regimes and both sides of wars because "War Is A Racket".

H.R. 3408
In 1979, our federal government granted the Communist regime in Poland an additional $500 million in loans and loan guarantees.
[...]
Why does our government continue to subsidize the Communists in Poland? Whose side is our government on, the Polish Communists or the Polish workers?

I believe that we should have a consistent foreign policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries. We should certainly not be subsidizing a dictatorial regime that is not supported by its own people. It is outrageous that taxes paid by the American people - people who sympathize with the Polish workers, not the Communist government have been and are being used to prop up that government. I have introduced legislation that would end such foreign subsidies, H.R. 3408, and I intend to push for its passage through Congress. Our irrational policy of subsidizing those who hate freedom must be stopped.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship." What's not to like about that?

 

[Victor Grey]

You're talking to people who think that committing random bombings into the violated territory of a nuclear power, Pakistan, who has already cooperated with us to hunt
down terrorist leaders, is not extremely more dangerous and dolt headed, than the threat posed by a handful of illiterate goat herders who might someday,
possibly blow up a building.

They don't think rationally. They're motivated by pure fear and emotion, and even their fears themselves are irrational, ignorant in their priorities and short sighted as far as irrational
fears go.

Pakistan could gear up and threaten to retaliate with nuclear force if they felt we threatened them.

These people would probably want to start a nuclear war, too. Because Lord knows, not busting
down that hiding-for-ten-years Bin Laden's door like an action movie while you play Stars and Stripes Forever and bite your lower lip moaning like an invalid in approval,

instead of how they've taken Alqueda in Pakistan numerous times before,

is more important than the idea that we enrage a nuclear power against us.

 

[TheDriver]

When it comes to Ron's position on killing OBL, everyone should be confused, because even Ron is, imo.

 

[Travlyr]

When it comes to Ron's position on killing OBL, everyone should be confused, because even Ron is, imo.

How so? He first authorized the authority to go after him. He introduced legislation of Marque and Reprisal. After 10 years of the most powerful military the world has ever known failed to find the best hider the world has ever known... as the story goes... they assassinate OBL without asking him any questions or even trying to capture him... so we are told.

Ron Paul is clear about his position on OBL.

 

[wistfulthinker]

Also the following article comes from the Heritage Foundation which is an organization most Conservatives adhere to.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics It explains that Progressives got a foothold in American Politics under Woodrow Wilson (which is exactly what we say), and their goal is to destroy the Constitution and the Republic.

But look what it says on Foreign policy"
______________________________
7. Foreign Policy

For the Founders, foreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property. Therefore, foreign policy was conceived primarily as defensive. Foreign attack was to be deterred by having strong arms or repulsed by force. Alliances were to be entered into with the understanding that a self-governing nation must keep itself aloof from the quarrels of other nations, except as needed for national defense. Government had no right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens to spread democracy to other nations or to engage in enterprises aiming at imperialistic hegemony.

The Progressives believed that a historical process was leading all mankind to freedom, or at least the advanced nations. Following Hegel, they thought of the march of freedom in history as having a geographical basis. It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.

The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:

[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.

Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."

Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body.

romacox, great stuff. Thank you for posting the HF article. I'm halfway through and it's just the sort of background I need to understand the roots of this division.

 

[Liberty74]

Sorry but your uncle is brain dead. I know because I use to believe and say the same stuff.

How can we defend America if we are policing the world in 130 countries? We can't. So your uncle is weak on defense.

Does your uncle support Iran, Russia, China, to build bases in his backyard? Of course he doesn't and would be mad as hell just like many in the ME are at us for occupying their lands. Hence, your uncle's thinking is creating the terrorism.

How does he feel about himself now?

 

[Original_Intent]

I think the best thing to do is stick with the golden rule analogy. Everybody gets that. It is not just a Christian thing, virtually every religious philosophy and even non religious ones have some version of the golden rule. It is also another way of saying "speak softly and carry a big stick". You should resolve everything that you possibly can diplomatically, but you need a military to back up diplomacy should it fail.

We have become a country that thinks of nothing and sees every international problem that just needs a bigger stick to resolve it.

Those that boo the golden rule are going to end up on the losing end of this argument. If we have really come to the point that such a philosophy is in the minority, God help us.

 

[TheDriver]

Ron Paul is clear about his position on OBL.

Yes, he objected to the killing of OBL for a few reasons. But the point remains: he objected. Then he says he wanted to go after him (after 9-11), but he objects now.--terrible position and confusing to the average voter.

If Ron voted to get OBL after 9-11, he should have been glad Obama got him when he did, not argumentative, imo. Especially considering he is running for president. Being right doesn't win elections!

 

[Travlyr]

Yes, he objected to the killing of OBL for a few reasons. But the point remains: he objected. Then he says he wanted to go after him (after 9-11), but he objects now.--terrible position and confusing to the average voter.

If Ron voted to get OBL after 9-11, he should have been glad Obama got him when he did, not argumentative, imo. Especially considering he is running for president. Being right doesn't win elections!

That is all water under the bridge. Why is it a debate question?

 

[romacox]

How so? He first authorized the authority to go after him. He introduced legislation of Marque and Reprisal. After 10 years of the most powerful military the world has ever known failed to find the best hider the world has ever known... as the story goes... they assassinate OBL without asking him any questions or even trying to capture him... so we are told.

Ron Paul is clear about his position on OBL.

right on!!! Ron Paul is the only candidate who is consistent in what he says, and what he votes for...he is no flip flopper.

romacox, great stuff. Thank you for posting the HF article. I'm halfway through and it's just the sort of background I need to understand the roots of this division.

You are welcome Wishfulthinker. It often works right off. But sometimes it seems to take time and patience. It is said that we have to hear something several times before we grasp an idea that contradicts our current beliefs. It is said that ideas become part of our ego, and we will fight to protect them as if we were fighting for our very lives even if they do us harm, and even if they are irrational. That is true for all of us...not just conservatives.

 

[Republicanguy]

Somebody cannot understand the madness of conflict since they have never fought. But if you do read enough you can use your imagination and feelings and who knows some experience and realised that total war or pre-emptive war is disgusting in our time just as my country's ancient domineering wars were to the Scottish as well as the Scottish to the English. And the rest.

I've been Reading a book recently which I find totally boring about the ancient conflict of 1296 - 1330 and cotinued with border skirmishes all throughout that century, I'd rather read Founding Brothers, but I've already read it.

It isn't the attitudes of selfishness or a God made a vision for this event or whatever of that era that interest me it's the details of the spoils of war, and chivalry and the repulsiveness of war and the lack of respect for anything in war.

Watching Mr Paul's South Carolina talk on foreign policy makes a lot of sense.

Our deep ancestors were ever they were lived by the old conduct of the old world, yet we still repeat the same mistakes. Just as that audience in South Carolina are so so Ignorant!

I do think Mr Paul could have used a bit more emotional words, like suffering of our own soldiers and families across our Union and the innocents killed. I do think he could use better examples when explaining his views.

 

[therepublic]

You are welcome Wishfulthinker. It often works right off. But sometimes it seems to take time and patience. It is said that we have to hear something several times before we grasp an idea that contradicts our current beliefs. It is said that ideas become part of our ego, and we will fight to protect them as if we were fighting for our very lives even if they do us harm, and even if they are irrational. That is true for all of us...not just conservatives.

That is so true, and we have all witnessed it on even this blog. Two people will start out arguing two opposing sides of an issue, and one side starts making more sense. The other side then abandons all reason, and begins personally attacking the other side.

But Ron Paul's policy is the same policy our Founding Fathers advocated. To say he's foreign policy is dangerous is the same as saying our Founding Fathers Foreign policy was Dangerous. It is the Progressive policy of the establishment that is dangerous, because it is destroying this Country.

 

[TheDriver]

That is all water under the bridge. Why is it a debate question?

To marginalize Ron Paul. The media has their attack questions for each candidate, I mean look at the digging they're doing with Bain Capital. I guess they could go back and audit Ron's old medical practice tax records and go after him for something, but his not so past statements are riper for the picking, and more toxic. The better question: why doesn't he compile some home-run responses for these same-ole attacks? For example: he should start his answers will appealing rhetoric. "I would have given the order to capture, or kill, OBL as fast as possible. So I applaud Obama for doing what the last administration couldn't do." Then he can go off and talk about the rule of law, or how we took our eye off the ball, but preface it with a strong acceptable statement.

 

[Pericles]

I'd suggest the key is to explain "what's in it for the US". A foreign policy in our own self interest, rather than trying to "fix" the world.

 

[Voluntary Man]

I apply the same logic your uncle uses in fp in my personal life. I just take my baseball bat and beat the shit out of random people who look at me funny on the street. Some of those people I beat down get angry and come looking for me later- proving they were dangerous and that I was correct all along.

^^^ THIS!!!

+ rep!

If I could give you more rep for this, I would. This is the best lampoon of the pre-crime...er...."preemptive war" doctrine I've seen. LMAO!

 

[bolil]

Hey nick, you can use this in your debate, it was written by General Smedly Butler (RIP you magnificent bastard)- A brief introduction of who Smedly Butler was, that is to say, a man that was awarded the Medal of Honor twice, and the brevet medal once (officers medal of honor before officers were eligible for the MOH). He was a general and was approached by banksters to lead a military coup against the US gov, he told them to get bent and went public with the story. Any ways to the quote.
This is taken from War is a Racket by Smedly Butler,
"it will take NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION soldiers to invade the United States with any hope of success. These million men must come all at once. They must bring not less than SEVEN TONS OF BAGGAGE PER MAN. One million men, seven million tons of food, ammunition, what not . . . Why, there are not enough ships in the whole world, including our own . . . to carry that kind of expedition." (Kindle edition Loc 613)

The entire book is excellent. What a man what a marine!

 

[Publicani]

I apply the same logic your uncle uses in fp in my personal life. I just take my baseball bat and beat the shit out of random people who look at me funny on the street. Some of those people I beat down get angry and come looking for me later- proving they were dangerous and that I was correct all along.

I wish Ron Paul used great zingers like this in his answers.