Rand's article in Foreign Policy Magazine: Peace thru Strength

[Harald]

Nice. Rand's outreach to "national security" voters continues.

How no-nonsense negotiations can prevent a war with Iran.
...
Peace through strength. It's a philosophy that guided the United States to victory in the Cold War and a policy that protected us from the calamity of nuclear war. But in the heated debate over Syria, our commitment to this approach has wavered -- and it's time we reasserted its prominence.
...
In the past, America's winning strategy was to seek peace through strength. It's a philosophy that served us back then -- and one that will serve us again in the future.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/15/peace_through_strength_us_iran_nuclear_negotiations

 

[libertygold]

Nice. Rand's outreach to "national security" voters continues.



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/15/peace_through_strength_us_iran_nuclear_negotiations

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

 

[dinosaur]

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

Peace through weakness isn't a good plan. Why be so concerned about what Cruz might do to Rand, and then take every opportunity to bash Rand?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

I think it was Paul Ryan or Romney, during the last election. And yes I really hate that saying, so so much.

 

[libertygold]

Peace through weakness isn't a good plan. Why be so concerned about what Cruz might do to Rand, and then take every opportunity to bash Rand?

It's not a matter of bashing Rand. I think its healthy to express criticism when it seems like they are moving away from the liberty movement and speaking in tones more reminiscent of neo-conservatives. I guess that is the tension in any movement. Principles vs. jockeying for the victory. I think I was just spoiled from Ron Paul. lol. The term "peace through strength" to me just brings back memories of Bush Jr.

 

[libertygold]

Peace through weakness isn't a good plan. Why be so concerned about what Cruz might do to Rand, and then take every opportunity to bash Rand?

Also, the reason I am concerned about what Ted Cruz is doing is just because I have these criticisms of Rand in areas I feel he is not as good as his father, doesn't mean I don't think he is better than Cruz in general.

 

[jmdrake]

Peace through weakness isn't a good plan. Why be so concerned about what Cruz might do to Rand, and then take every opportunity to bash Rand?

How about strength through peace? Honest friendship with all and entangling alliances with none? Realizing that we can't be militarily strong as long as we are economically weak and economic strength won't come with massive debt and reducing massive debt means reducing spending including military? Sure I realize Rand knows all of this. Sure I realize the average voter is too willing to rely on spoonfed sound bite "journalism" to understand this. I just hate that we have to pander like that.

 

[libertygold]

How about strength through peace? Honest friendship with all and entangling alliances with none? Realizing that we can't be militarily strong as long as we are economically weak and economic strength won't come with massive debt and reducing massive debt means reducing spending including military? Sure I realize Rand knows all of this. Sure I realize the average voter is too willing to rely on spoonfed sound bite "journalism" to understand this. I just hate that we have to pander like that.

Exactly. That is why I have no problem criticizing Rand. No individual should be bigger than the movement and what we stand for. Even if the person being criticized happens to be the son of someone we admire.

 

[dinosaur]

How about strength through peace? Honest friendship with all and entangling alliances with none? Realizing that we can't be militarily strong as long as we are economically weak and economic strength won't come with massive debt and reducing massive debt means reducing spending including military? Sure I realize Rand knows all of this. Sure I realize the average voter is too willing to rely on spoonfed sound bite "journalism" to understand this. I just hate that we have to pander like that.

I don't think peace through strength implies entangling alliances. Part of Rand's political genius is giving better, or proper definitions to familiar concepts. Hating the phrase is no reason to bash him for using it. Not having massive debt is also part of strength; explaining this to people is not pandering.

 

[specsaregood]

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

You really must not have listened to any Ron Paul speeches or Rand Paul speeches if you have to ask that question. Both Ron and Rand have cited Pres. Reagan with that quote many dozens of times --although it has been used throughout history. In case you havent' heard, Reagan was a fairly popular president.

 

[jmdrake]

Exactly. That is why I have no problem criticizing Rand. No individual should be bigger than the movement and what we stand for. Even if the person being criticized happens to be the son of someone we admire.

True. But for me this is really an issue over style rather than substance. Rand is using tough rhetoric to push a sensible idea, seriously talk with the Iranians. If Bush had followed that there would have been a deal with the Iranians back in 2004. Iran offered the "grand bargain" (full access to it's WMD program, end support of terrorism, recognize Israel in exchange for a non aggression pact) and they were rebuffed. Dumbest (or most evil) foreign policy decision ever.

 

[rich34]

How about strength through peace? Honest friendship with all and entangling alliances with none? Realizing that we can't be militarily strong as long as we are economically weak and economic strength won't come with massive debt and reducing massive debt means reducing spending including military? Sure I realize Rand knows all of this. Sure I realize the average voter is too willing to rely on spoonfed sound bite "journalism" to understand this. I just hate that we have to pander like that.

Not disagreeing in anyway shape or form, BUT we all know Rand must play the game in order to win. Appearing in anyway like his father on foreign policy will cause us to lose for sure. Sure Rand will come closer than Ron even if he didn't but playing the game right just might help Rand to finish in the only place that matters. Let Rand win the primary then he can soften the rhetoric and hopefully fracture the anti war base of the democrats. I'd honestly hate to be in Rand's shoes playing the role of a politician trying to please everyone with every word he speaks. We're asking this man to pitch a perfect game and yet that might not be enough knowing what we're up against.

 

[Harald]

I think peace through strength is a good slogan.

If we feel weak, we might think that we need to engage in wars, overthrow other governments. If we are strong, we don't have to.

BTW, strong doesn't mean more military spending than the rest of the world combined. Not even stronger than any other country. Just powerful enough that any attack on US is devastating for the attacker.

Nukes are good, cost effective deterrent.

 

[Cabal]

How about strength through peace? Honest friendship with all and entangling alliances with none? Realizing that we can't be militarily strong as long as we are economically weak and economic strength won't come with massive debt and reducing massive debt means reducing spending including military? Sure I realize Rand knows all of this. Sure I realize the average voter is too willing to rely on spoonfed sound bite "journalism" to understand this. I just hate that we have to pander like that.

Much, much, much better. I would also add that the more that is spent on 'defense' the more that 'defense spending' seeks to be rationalized through war.

But no, 'we' don't have to. 'We' choose to. Whether that is a wise choice or not is another matter.

 

[puppetmaster]

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

That is exactly what the people having the right to keep and bear arms is. Peace through strength.
An armed society is a polite society.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think peace through strength implies entangling alliances. Part of Rand's political genius is giving better, or proper definitions to familiar concepts. Hating the phrase is no reason to bash him for using it. Not having massive debt is also part of strength; explaining this to people is not pandering.

The people who have used the term "peace through strength" have typically engaged in entangling alliances. But that wasn't my point. My point is that strength through peace implies NO entangling alliances. My idea is that if we pro-actively pursue pragmatic peace we will be stronger as a nation. That includes "honest friendship with all." During the last election cycle Ron Paul stated that we should be friends with Iran. The well meaning, but not very savvy, woman that runs one of the local "conservative" email lists put that in one of her mailings with a big "?" as if there was something bad about being friends with Iran. Friendship with Iran would have made us stronger. We would have been further in the war against their common enemy Al Qaeda. (Though that's really a fake war anyway since we actually created Al Qaeda). We would have lost nearly as many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we likely wouldn't be fretting today over Iran's nuke program. But alas, stupid heads prevailed.

 

[Matt Collins]

I think its healthy to express criticism when it seems like they are moving away from the liberty movement and speaking in tones more reminiscent of neo-conservatives.

Only in rhetoric and not in action. The general population has been spoon-fed neocon propoganda for decades, they can't just take an immediate end to it, they have to be let off of it easily, and that is what Rand is doing. He is speaking their language, but nit adhering to their philosophy.

I guess that is the tension in any movement. Principles vs. jockeying for the victory.

You can shift your rhetoric without giving up principles. Rand has proven that time and time again.

 

[jmdrake]

Not disagreeing in anyway shape or form, BUT we all know Rand must play the game in order to win. Appearing in anyway like his father on foreign policy will cause us to lose for sure. Sure Rand will come closer than Ron even if he didn't but playing the game right just might help Rand to finish in the only place that matters. Let Rand win the primary then he can soften the rhetoric and hopefully fracture the anti war base of the democrats. I'd honestly hate to be in Rand's shoes playing the role of a politician trying to please everyone with every word he speaks. We're asking this man to pitch a perfect game and yet that might not be enough knowing what we're up against.

Sure. Like I said in another post, I like overall where Rand went with the article.

 

[Cabal]

I think peace through strength is a good slogan.

If we feel weak, we might think that we need to engage in wars, overthrow other governments. If we are strong, we don't have to.

BTW, strong doesn't mean more military spending than the rest of the world combined. Not even stronger than any other country. Just powerful enough that any attack on US is devastating for the attacker.

Nukes are good, cost effective deterrent.

Except this has not been the case at all. It's been the exact opposite as what you state. The U.S. has been a military superpower for many decades, and nevertheless has been engaged in near perpetual war of one degree or another for those many decades. The U.S.'s neighbors are Canada and Mexico--neither of which have ever been even marginally close to being a military threat. To the east and west, the U.S. is guarded by vast oceans. A foreign soldier has not set foot on U.S. soil for like 200 years. The only 'attacks on the U.S.' have occurred within foreign nations, or have been perpetrated by terrorist organizations as a result of our presence in foreign nations. We have enough firepower to blow up the world like 12 times over. Strength, or power, is not something the U.S. has been lacking, militarily.

So no, peace, quite clearly, does not necessarily follow from strength at all.

 

[rich34]

Except this has not been the case at all. It's been the exact opposite as what you state. The U.S. has been a military superpower for many decades, and nevertheless has been engaged in near perpetual war of one degree or another for those many decades. The U.S.'s neighbors are Canada and Mexico--neither of which have ever been even marginally close to being a military threat. To the east and west, the U.S. is guarded by vast oceans. A foreign soldier has not set foot on U.S. soil for like 200 years. The only 'attacks on the U.S.' have occurred within foreign nations, or have been perpetrated by terrorist organizations as a result of our presence in foreign nations. We have enough firepower to blow up the world like 12 times over. Strength, or power, is not something the U.S. has been lacking, militarily.

So no, peace, quite clearly, does not necessarily follow from strength at all.

I had a history/psychology teacher who swore he had a friend that lived in Massachusetts during ww2 and said he saw German troops swarming the beaches but didn't make it very far in. I know "officially" but I tended to believe him.