The only problem with Ron Paul are some aspects of his foreign policy

[trey4sports]

This was a great discussion. Everyone is well informed and I have come out of this supportive of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

glad to hear pro-life libertarian!

I enjoyed the conversation and to be fair, i don't think our differences were that great and probably just resided in very minute details. Anyway, glad your onboard!

 

[LibertyEagle]

This was a great discussion. Everyone is well informed and I have come out of this supportive of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Thank you for your willingness to come here and share your concerns with us. It's great that you are here.

Note: As you read, please keep in mind that we come from across the political spectrum. We disagree on a variety of things and frequently duke it out verbally. But, we realize that without liberty, nothing else really matters.

As Ron Paul says... freedom is popular.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Welcome aboard

 

[Bryan]

This was a great discussion. Everyone is well informed and I have come out of this supportive of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Great- I've got two things for you to look at to support the position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

 

[newbitech]

 

[amy31416]

This was a great discussion. Everyone is well informed and I have come out of this supportive of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Everyone kept it pretty civil too...perhaps part of the reason?

Regardless, very happy to hear it. Once again, welcome.

 

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Thank you all

 

[Sola_Fide]

This was a great discussion. Everyone is well informed and I have come out of this supportive of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Awesome man! Stick around.

 

[owlbug]

Bases
We can get rid of some of them, I have no problem with that. We can't abandon all of them though, as it is horrible military strategy. I don't believe having a base in a country that doesn't mind us there is "occupation". I never once said to put a base in a country that hates us.

When you play the game 'Risk', it is beneficial to maintain positions to keep your enemies from expanding. There is some concern that China & Russia would take advantage if we backed out of key foreign bases. But if they were to expand, their governments would be put to the test regarding maintaining an empire and dealing with more of the world's problems and we'd be able to focus more on domestic issues. Right now we do the defense work for a number of countries, which frees them to focus on making themselves richer. I think we struggle as a nation to maintain an "empire", but so would any other nation. I have faith that our fundamental philosophy of freedom is more powerful than the oppressive governments of many of the countries that concern us. I think giving opressive regimes more freedom to exert themselves will actually be their downfall - much more so than military action. I truly believe in the USA and the philosophy of freedom.

I know Ron Paul says bring home all the troops now, but I don't think that's logistically possible. I imagine it would be a gradual thing (not like Obama's faux gradual, a legitimate gradual drawdown). But even were it not, I think our foreign relationships would profit because a lot of countries would stop taking for granted how important our friendship is. Of course, I think we'd also remember how important our relationships with countries around the world are also.

Iran and North Korea
If we get signals that they may be wanting to use a nuclear weapon against us, that is when we must launch a preemptive strike and disarm them of those weapons. I am not interested in seeing several millions of Americans killed just because they may be a "sovereign nation". Let me specify-this would not be a nuclear attack against them, heavens no.

North Korea is not a threat to us, but China may be taking advantage of their craziness. South Korea, Vietnam, India, and Japan (probably others) are nations that I imagine we use to keep China in check, and North Korea is China's answer. If we pull out of southeast Asia I think China has made clear that they will push for more territory and start pressing hard against Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, etc, maybe using North Korea. If China were to do that, though, more of their resources would be devoted to stabilizing or militarizing, more of our allies would spend resources on stabilizing and militarizing, and more of our resources would be spent domestically.

If North Korea were to go off and nuke one of our allies or the US, they'd be toast and China would lose their saber-rattler. Europe and all of our allies would support that action. China and Russia wouldn't be able to say shit short of WWIII and I guarantee a lot of Chinese and Russians would be against that to protect North Korea. It is in China's (and Russia's) interest to keep North Korea from going off their meds.

Regarding Islam, the Islamic extremists are the minority. Their numbers are bolstered by people convinced by our actions in the middle east to take a stand against what they see as wrong (a foreign power sticking its nose where it don't belong, family, friends, and stories of innocents killed or maimed by our actions). We cannot wipe hate off the face of the world, but we can stop fueling the arguments of those extremists which would cause their numbers to dwindle and their voice and financial backing to shrink.

Threats against the US need to be taken seriously, but no nation is going to attack us. If Iran were to attack us they would be toast with no argument by Iran's allies to deter us or our allies. Russia, China, and the middle east would not be able or willing to defend Iran. The world supported our action in Afghanistan. Bush just bungled that up by switching to Iraq. The world would support us or at least step back while we handled our business. Iran is much more likely to lash out at Israel and I imagine Russia and Europe really don't want that to happen. Put more burden on Israel's neighbors and Israel and less on the US to maintain stability.

 

[LeJimster]

I don't see any problem of pulling out of all these regions. So what if they get nuclear weapons. They would be incredibly dumb to use such weapons against any country, for the retaliation would be devastating considering how many advanced weapons all the other countries have..

And of course anti-american extremists are going to exist for a long time after a withdrawl. But over time these numbers will naturally decrease. Any need to go after enemies can be done on a smaller scale, with the cooperation of real allies (not the paid off phoney type) and with the use of bounty hunters if necessary.

I think the main thing is we need to stop thinking about these people as soulless terrorists. The majority have a grudge against America and here allies for a reason, and if you take that reason away there will be less resentment and hostilities as people get older and newer generations take over. But it needs to begin now and not after millions more innocent people have to die for this futile war on terror.

 

[falconplayer11]

Everyone kept it pretty civil too...perhaps part of the reason?

Regardless, very happy to hear it. Once again, welcome.

Yes...civility is important. Especially at the straw polls and townhall meetings as primaries are around the corner.

 

[Acala]

This was a great discussion. Everyone is well informed and I have come out of this supportive of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Woo hoo!

RPF is about as good as it gets on the net.

 

[falconplayer11]

Ron Paul doesn't understand Islamo fascism....snort. He's the only sitting member of Congress that warned us that a 9/11 type event was going to happen if we didn't rethink our foreign policy. He gave us 10 freaking years to sit up and take notice of what America is doing (and who we are killing) over there, and we went shopping instead, until the planes hit the Towers. But now people who couldn't even explain the differences between Iran and Iraq are suddenly experts in Sharia and Islamofascism - a word made up by the very people that make billions off of perpetual war - because they've watched some very convincing YouTube videos put out by the same people that had no clue that the Middle East was getting bombed by our planes every freaking day up until the.

Spare me the bull. THe whole "sharia" crap is just a made up excuse to keep the war machine humming along. They don't hate us because we're free, they don't hate us because we aren't Muslims. They hate us because we're killing their children.

And you want to talk about Iran? They don't hate us at all. Years of being occupied by the West left them fairly westernized. Their leader is ass, but that hardly is an excuse to call for a nuclear first strike, something that Romney did.

Foreign bases? We are subsidizing socialism by allowing all those nations to divert financial resources away from their own defense and into their failing entitlement programs by using our troops to provide their national defense. And it's ridiculous to think that a) the world would fall apart if we weren't running it and b) we are capable of running the whole damned world. THere's a name for that, you know.

It is totally ridiculous to maintain that the only thing Ron Paul doesn't understand is the future, when he has has predicted absolutely everything that ails this country today. But that's all they have against him, isn't it? He's wrong about things that haven't happened, even though he's been right all along so far.

Nuclear war? Really, we have to start a nuclear war in order to prevent nuclear war? Did we learn nothing from Reagan and Russia?

Cling to that while the country sinks - I can't stop you, but I promise it won't float.

^^Best post of the week.

And on the Iran point...imagine if a US president met with Ahmadinejad and proposed unlimited free trade between the two countries? If we said we support Iran's right to prosper just as much as Israel's right to exist? If American corporations worked with Iranian firms to develop better nuclear technologies and oil refining methods?

Would we still be sworn enemies? Would the jihadists who try to kill us be supported by Iran? Would the Iranian people allow their neighbors to launch terrorist attacks against the US?

 

[georgiaboy]

Thread of the Day winner, and in the running for Thread of the Year.

Welcome PLL! Great discussion everyone - I don't recall one ad hominem. Maybe the best foreign policy thread ever. Very timely, too.

Just read the whole thing - gotta go back through it now and spread some rep around. The sophistry was impressive. Honing skills have been honed.

 

[THX 1138]

First off, I will say I agree with Ron Paul that:

1-We should not be nation building.
2-We need to cut off foreign aid. At least most of it.

Here is my problem with some of Paul's ideas. We all know that he wants to shut down all the bases that are spread throughout the world. That would be a huge problem strategically in so many aspects. Secondly he doesn't understand that Islamofascism is a substantial threat and it cannot be ignored. Terrorist organizations will not go away just because we leave the middle east. Lastly he is against intervention. I am mostly against intervention too. Invading Iraq was a mistake. It's secular regime served as a counter-balance to the Sharia states; they did not pose a signficant threat to the U.S. Libya was a mistake too and a what the heck decision by Obama. I think Afghanistan was necessary because that was the primary terrorist breeding ground and the regime was an active sponsor of anti-American terrorism. Now we know North Korea has a nuclear weapon and Iran is getting close to creating one. Would Ron Paul launch a preemptive strike or wait to get attacked? All indications say he wouldn't move in and take out their nukes. In my opinion that is a dangerous way of thinking.

As for terrorism from the Middle East, I think that we could largely diminish the problem in a very simple way:

Stop sending billions of dollars each year of financial aid to Israel, as well as to all of the other Middle Eastern nations. This would largely reduce the motivation, as well as the economic means, for any Middle Eastern nation to launch a serious threat against the US.

This may not solve all of our problems, but it would be a good start.

In the meantime, I believe that we should also stop all immigration into the US. I'm sure many here would object to this, but this would reduce the risk of civilian foreigners with a grudge against the West to launch an attack on US soil. Of course, some people may feel that it's worth taking that risk in order to advance the cause of "diversity", but I for one do not. American lives come first in my world.

I've read up far less on the situation with North Korea, so I can only speculate here. I imagine that it may indeed help to stop sending them food aid, since again this basically subsidizes their existence and by proxy their ability to attack us. I would think that a more dignified and rational approach (both for us and them) would be instead to establish a relationship that is purely market-based.

Many of the US bases around the world have no pressing need to be there. In Japan, for example, we have actually caused far more harm than good. Some US soldiers, in their apparent boredom, have been caught raping Japanese girls on Okinawa. They've also established a McDonald's on that same island. Both of these incidents amount to a gross insult to Okinawan culture.

 

[PermanentSleep]

I believe the main function of government is defense.

This isn't about attacking countries because they are "mean" to us, and you're right I don't like their religion. Don't marginalize the threat of a nuclear enemy that has nothing to lose and everything to gain. I don't want to kill people either, just disarm them.

The head of an ENTIRE country of millions of people would give up all of the free virgins his authority could demand into his palace on earth for a pitiful 72(?) in the afterlife? Not to mention all of the wealth, authority, and fun toys a dictator gets to play with. I highly doubt an earthly "king" would trade his living crown for a slew of ghostly virgins, which leads me to highly consider this afterlife virgin business to be a laughable marketing ploy for the unwashed masses.

 

[BUSHLIED]

What do you mean by 'America would not actually use their nuclear weapons' ? Forgot about WW2 ? America's the only country who HAS used a nuke. I have no dout they'd use it again. Even on Americans. People need to grow up and realize how out of control the US Gov't is.

I am not quite that the US would nuke itself...

The bomb, as we were told, was used to prevent a full-scale ground war BUT there are some evidence that the Japanese were close to surrendering BUT that that information was ignored by the President and the use of bomb commenced.