Ron Paul's foreign policy in action: the history of Switzerland

swissaustrian said:
The article is generally correct, but one fact should be added:
Switzerand's indefinite neutrality was guaranteed by all major European nations at the Vienna Congress in 1815. So my country didn't just decide to be neutral, our neutrality was accepted by our neighbours as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Napoleonic_era
Click to expand...

it should also be noted Switzerland has one of the few conscript armies left in Europe
 
No one wants to be uninvolved in world affairs, or neutral like Switzerland. Paul doesn't advocate this either. Quit misrepresenting him.
 
I never liked that saying, "anti-war".

It doesn't properly represent his or my position.

Dr. Paul would use force if he needed, so that term doesn't really work.

In fact, I am sick of that term.
 
Highstreet said:
No one wants to be uninvolved in world affairs, or neutral like Switzerland. Paul doesn't advocate this either. Quit misrepresenting him.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between neutrality and non-intervention? RP uses them as synonyms as far as I can see.
 
Highstreet said:
No one wants to be uninvolved in world affairs, or neutral like Switzerland. Paul doesn't advocate this either. Quit misrepresenting him.
Click to expand...
"Uninvolved in world affairs" is such a diffuse statement to make. Switzerland is not isolationist. They're non-interventionism, meaning they take no part in internal conflicts of other nations or international conflicts that they have nothing to say in. They have peaceful and stable commerce with other nations, they have a relatively stable currency (their central bank is struggling because their currency isn't DEVALUING FAST ENOUGH COMPARED TO TRADING PARTNERS).

They are not a member of the EU, and they joined the UN in 2002 - meaning they're probably more "involved in world affairs" than Ron Paul would even want the US to be going by your standards. They don't have much say in world matters because they're a very small nation. Plus, Ron Paul wouldn't want to run the world anyway.
 
Last edited:
No Free Beer said:
I never liked that saying, "anti-war".

It doesn't properly represent his or my position.

Dr. Paul would use force if he needed, so that term doesn't really work.

In fact, I am sick of that term.
Click to expand...
If "anti-war" doesn't apply to him, why is he a regular contributor to antiwar.com? It does properly represent his positions. He adheres to a foreign policy consistent with the non-aggression principle, however, if a country is being aggressive towards the US, (like the situation he described on Jan Mickelson - that a foreign country militarily tried to blockade the Panama Canal), he would go to the legislative branch and ask for a declaration of war.

He's very reluctant to go to war because he knows it ALWAYS hurts the economy and the mental state of those brave men and women who fight the wars, so anti-war does apply. Anti-war =/= Pacifist.
 
Last edited:
jsem said:
If "anti-war" doesn't apply to him, why is he a regular contributor to antiwar.com? It does properly represent his positions. He adheres to a foreign policy consistent with the non-aggression principle, however, if a country is being aggressive towards the US, (like the situation he described on Jan Mickelson - that a foreign country militarily tried to blockade the Panama Canal), he would go to the legislative branch and ask for a declaration of war.

He's very reluctant to go to war because he knows it ALWAYS hurts the economy and the mental state of those brave men and women who fight the wars, so anti-war does apply. Anti-war =/= Pacifist.
Click to expand...

So if I make music and a serial killer enjoys my music, that makes me hold the same beliefs as him?

I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude...but your reasoning was quite weak. The term doesn't match up. Anti-war would mean, imo, he wouldn't go to war, period. Ron Paul is pro-defence. There is a clear difference. I would only approve of war with a DOW as well, that doesn't make me anti-war. I don't like war just as much as the next guy, again...that doesn't me anti-war. It's way too broad of a term.
 
I didn't mean to be rude either. That's not necessarily what anti-war would mean though. Antiwar would just mean you generally oppose war. But it's not the term I'd use to explain his foreign policy to a newbie anyway, I'd use a term like non-interventionism instead.
 
jsem said:
I didn't mean to be rude either. That's not necessarily what anti-war would mean though. Antiwar would just mean you generally oppose war. But it's not the term I'd use to explain his foreign policy to a newbie anyway, I'd use a term like non-interventionism instead.
Click to expand...

I am just a stickler for words. I am no fan of "anti-war". We will just agree to disagree.
 
I love hearing about the Swiss.
I never knew any of this.
The following is from a Financial analyst blogger re:Swiss bankers not allowed to enter the US:

At my workshop on Financial Market Timing on Saturday, January 7, in Zurich, I had the privilege of sitting at lunch with three very fine people. One was a Swiss banker. He was there with one of his special clients - one my subscribers, who is a very successful businesswoman with residences in both Switzerland and Vero Beach, Florida. At a certain point, I asked this young banker if he comes often to the United States. “Not anymore. We can’t. Our banks will not let us travel to the USA.”

“Why not?” I asked, for this seemed like a very strange policy for a bank.

“Your country now detains all Swiss bankers who enter the USA. They are asked to give up the names of their American clients so they can be checked to see if they are avoiding payment of taxes in the USA. If we do that, we lose our clients and the bank fires us. If we don’t, your government detains us for several weeks, months, even years. Therefore none of us, as Swiss bankers, can travel to the USA at this time.” You see, it is a violation of Swiss banking laws of confidentiality to reveal their clients to anyone. At the same time, the USA now has a policy where banks from other nations cannot conduct business in the USA unless they reveal the identities of all of their USA clients. As a comparison, imagine that you are a doctor, lawyer, astrologer, or psychologist, and someone from law enforcement asks you to reveal confidential information about one of your clients, under threat of detainment or even incarceration. What do you do? What does your employer do if he/she knows you will be put into such a compromising situation?

http://www.mmacycles.com/weekly-preview/mma-comments-for-the-week/mma-comments-for-the-week-beginning--january-30,-2012/
 
Good find!

Believe me: Switzerland would also use force if we were attacked on our soil! We got a strong milicia army and everybody between the age of 20-40 has a gun from the military at home. Those people in here who claim that we won't fight back are totally wong! We just don't like to meddle into the affairs of other nations and we like to use diplomacy. In fact Ron Paul has used Switzerland in some past statements as an example...
 
Switzerland is doing it right. We wouldn't have to even worry about war if we weren't starting all of them.

Wise up.
 
No Free Beer said:
So if I make music and a serial killer enjoys my music, that makes me hold the same beliefs as him?

I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude...but your reasoning was quite weak. The term doesn't match up. Anti-war would mean, imo, he wouldn't go to war, period. Ron Paul is pro-defence. There is a clear difference. I would only approve of war with a DOW as well, that doesn't make me anti-war. I don't like war just as much as the next guy, again...that doesn't me anti-war. It's way too broad of a term.
Click to expand...

A declaration of war is a non-normative statement. If you broadly support any and every war that would be declared then you have no principles and have abdicated your functioning brain center to the buffoons on the Potomac. If Congress declared war tomorrow on every nation in the world would you de facto support it because it is a 'declared war'? I am tired of hearing this line of reasoning as it is devoid of any principles.

Why have the word anti-war if it is just a synonym with pacifism? How would you differentiate yourself from a hawk who says they are pro-defense also? Ron is anti-war and dovish, meaning he advocates and explains why peace is superior and war is destructive and dangerous.

Would you call the Anti-Federalist Founders who abhorred and despised and wanted to abolish Standing Armies pacifists? That would make no sense whatsoever. They hated war, and loved peace moreso than folks like Dennis Kucinich who you would probably call one of the more anti-war folks.
 
Highstreet said:
No one wants to be uninvolved in world affairs, or neutral like Switzerland. Paul doesn't advocate this either. Quit misrepresenting him.
Click to expand...

No one is sugesting that neutrality or non interventionism means not being involved in world affairs. In fact just a couple of months ago it was Switzerland's lead that was most helpfull is getting the hikers released from Iran. That isn't being uninvolved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
EPA Launches Biggest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History
Replies
16
Views
160
acptulsa
acptulsa
T
The Winner Writes the History- Uncover the Truth about the Civil War in Defending Dixie's Land
Replies
0
Views
782
Treebeard
T
PAF
Cuts to Foreign Aid is a Good Start
Replies
2
Views
131
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
W
The Peace Summit in Switzerland is a Joke.
Replies
0
Views
378
WarriorLiberty
W
Swordsmyth
Patel Orders 1,500 FBI Agents and Staff Out of the Building on Day One
Replies
4
Views
200
oyarde
O
Back
Top