Thread: Opinion Paul's foreign policy ideas dangerous to U.S.

This ALIPAC member has posted this entity be it editorial opinion, news article, column, or web creation as information for the General Population (public) only. It is not intended as an endorsement for this candidate by this poster. Its use here has not been anticipated to be used to, or used as a discredit of any candidate mentioned herewith.

Some of Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas dangerous to U.S.

By: Nik Antovich | Columnist nantovich@dailyemerald.com
Issue date: 11/27/07 Section: Opinion

http://media.www.dailyemerald.com

Ron Paul fervor is on the rise. You either love him, hate him or don't understand him, and those that love Ron Paul really love Ron Paul.

I conditionally want to vote for Representative Paul. I entirely agree with him regarding the repeal of income taxes, strong border security, privacy rights, property rights, and healthcare reform. We do need to distance ourselves from the U.N. and other international bureaucracies as Dr. Paul asserts. I like how he is consistent in his ideology, and how his voting record proves it. There is something appealing about a candidate who says what he believes and backs it up with policy.

Like I said, I truly want to vote for Ron Paul, but I can't. When speaking with Paul supporters it is clear they are excited. They're excited because Ron Paul offers a choice of freedom. Specifically, his message emphasizes individual freedom, just as our Founding Fathers desired. However, some of Paul's less publicized positions trouble me.

I understand that part of the allure of Ron Paul is his opposition to the war. On the political spectrum he is often placed where the extreme right and extreme left meet. His events are known for drawing hippies as well as Goldwaterites. However, his less talked about, yet strong conviction that U.S. troops should not be stationed anywhere around the world, specifically the Middle East, is ignorant. Paul argues that our presence in Saudi Arabia is what has caused extremists to target us. I can't say that I disagree, but I wonder if Paul understands the alternative.

Saudi Arabia has allowed our presence in order to protect their oil reserves from exterior threats. We have been sensitive to their requests for a minimal military footprint and have in fact been removing troops since Saddam Hussein was eliminated, as he posed the greatest danger. This not only ensures a constant flow of oil from the leading producer in the world, but also provides relief to investors driving our market, as they have reassurance knowing that a disturbance in the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia is unlikely. We cannot be responsible if a contingent of extremists believes our intentions to be negative. A disruption of oil from the country could cause economies to enter depressions.

If one were to ask Ron Paul to describe his foreign policy he would describe himself as a non-interventionist, and would be quick to point out that this is not isolationism. Instead, Paul describes non-intervention as, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." Paul would explain that this is in line with our Founding Fathers' beliefs, and he is right, in fact the above quote is a line from Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address.

I wish that I was born into a world in which the United States had a non-interventionist foreign policy, but I wasn't. The U.S. was forced to adopt an interventionist policy at the start of World War I. From that day on it was necessary for our country to be involved in others' actions. For the past 90 years our country has intertwined itself in foreign affairs, and contrary to Paul's position, we cannot just stop with the flick of a pen.

Ron Paul scares me because he is actually going to do what he says. If elected he would eliminate our intelligence agencies, and get us out of Iraq as well as Afghanistan, regardless of the unintended consequences. But then what? What happens if Iraq is overtaken by extremists? What happens if the flow of oil is disrupted in Saudi Arabia? What do we do if Israel is bombed by Hamas and Hezbollah, or Iran? What if Iran, with their mind set on the destruction of Israel, gets a nuclear weapon? If any Ron Paul supporters reading this know the answers to these questions please tell me. Because, frankly, I want a non-interventionist policy, but I don't see how it could work.

Ron Paul is a man who loves only one thing more than his country, and that is the Constitution. He will apply his interpretation of the Constitution to all executive decisions. I just wish he would recognize that we cannot reverse a century of foreign policy in one presidential term. I can acknowledge that our interventionist policies have hurt us at times, but President Bush did not invent alliances or trade agreements. Those have been around for a long time.

This is a fair article that debates Dr Paul's positions without trying to make him out as some kind of kook.

I wish that I was born into a world in which the United States had a non-interventionist foreign policy, but I wasn't. The U.S. was forced to adopt an interventionist policy at the start of World War I. From that day on it was necessary for our country to be involved in others' actions. For the past 90 years our country has intertwined itself in foreign affairs, and contrary to Paul's position, we cannot just stop with the flick of a pen.

I think that Paul is smart enough to know that he can't do it in a single day, all he has done is ask why we continue to play the worlds police force on our dime.

Saudi Arabia has allowed our presence in order to protect their oil reserves from exterior threats. We have been sensitive to their requests for a minimal military footprint and have in fact been removing troops since Saddam Hussein was eliminated, as he posed the greatest danger.

Somehow I think that is one of those - 'he's a really nice man - but you can't possibly vote for him'.

I don't see it as a really evenhanded piece - but that's me.

First off, how in the world was Saddam the biggest threat to us? He had nothing to do with 9/11, even Cheney finally admitted that. From what I heard he didn't get along with Al Queda and it wasn't in his country to any extent - until we opened the borders and let the problem in. (Seems to be something we are very good at doing.)

Anyone who thinks our presence in the ME, militarily and interference in governments over there, is not the reason they hate us, really needs to sit down and think about it.

This sounds like another of those "We have to protect America's interest overseas' type things.

Let's protect America's interest here at home first - then we can really look at just what our interests might be over there.

I see this as another 'he's a kook' - even though it pretends to be ever so kind in doing so.

I am not saying Ron Paul is the best - but I like the idea of bringing them home. One thing we have to ask our selves - we have been continuing on this path since WWII - putting in bases all over the world, interfering in governments, propping up first one despotic dictator after another, sometimes having to take them out again, etc.

How's it working for us?

Isn't it time to at least thing about something else?

kniggit wrote:

This is a fair article that debates Dr Paul's positions without trying to make him out as some kind of kook.

I agree, and it brings to light some very important issues that 'some' Ron Paul supporters seem hesitant to debate.

I agree, and it brings to light some very important issues that 'some' Ron Paul supporters seem hesitant to debate.




I am not a supporter - but a watcher.

What issues were brought to light?

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Ron Paul scares me because he is actually going to do what he says. If elected he would eliminate our intelligence agencies, and get us out of Iraq as well as Afghanistan, regardless of the unintended consequences.

Where did Ron Paul say he would eliminate all intelligence agencies? I agree with getting our fighting troops out of the middle east, we can leave advisers, diplomats, and the peace corp.

What happens if the flow of oil is disrupted in Saudi Arabia?

Nothing happens to us, most middle east oil goes to Europe and Asia.

What do we do if Israel is bombed by Hamas and Hezbollah, or Iran? What if Iran, with their mind set on the destruction of Israel, gets a nuclear weapon?

Israel can take care of themselves, they are smart people and already have 50 nukes themselves!

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Ron Paul scares me because he is actually going to do what he says. If elected he would eliminate our intelligence agencies, and get us out of Iraq as well as Afghanistan, regardless of the unintended consequences.

Where did Ron Paul say he would eliminate all intelligence agencies? I agree with getting our fighting troops out of the middle east, we can leave advisers, diplomats, and the peace corp.

What happens if the flow of oil is disrupted in Saudi Arabia?

Nothing happens to us, most middle east oil goes to Europe and Asia.

[quote:8mdzg80q]What do we do if Israel is bombed by Hamas and Hezbollah, or Iran? What if Iran, with their mind set on the destruction of Israel, gets a nuclear weapon?

Israel can take care of themselves, they are smart people and already have 50 nukes themselves![/quote:8mdzg80q]



Most of the land mass in Israel has already been taken over by muslims . They are about to also give up the most stratigically imporant part of land they have 'Hebron Vally I think is the name of it '.

Nukes don't mean a whole lot to those who think death is fun and will be instant trip to paradise .

I don't care how many nukes you have , if you are surrounded by your enemies your toast when the shiite hits the fan !

.

I believe Israel has around 300 nukes and very strong economy.

Ones might/strength is not attributed solely to their military BUT also, and mostly, to their economy. Our military is in the toilet and our economy is in the toilet.

The course we are currently at is not good. We need to bring our troops home. Our "empire and interests" didnt' spring up overnight, so we cannot bring them home overnight. BUT, we can bring them home in a fashion that is consistent with the host companies taking over their OWN protection. We do not need bases and such in Japan, or South Korea or wherever.

Now, remember. The piece is written from a perspective of "his" opinion. One could argue that it is our very foreign policy that is dangerous.

See, we have gotten so use to the constant wars, that it is "normal", and to reverse that thought is considered "dangerous" and we use arguments like "losing jobs or protecting our interests" as arguments to stay.

I suggest that is our very foreign policy that has created MOST of our conflicts. Not sure if anyone knows this, but the military complex is a HUGE RACKET. China and Russia both are superpowers, and they are not prancing around the globe with 700 bases. We spend more on our defense than ALL countries combined... YET, we are loosing our superpower status somewhat to other countries. Why? Our Foreign Policy and our Money Policy ---> this cannot be disputed.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

I believe Israel has around 300 nukes and very strong economy.

Ones might/strength is not attributed solely to their military BUT also, and mostly, to their economy. Our military is in the toilet and our economy is in the toilet.

The course we are currently at is not good. We need to bring our troops home. Our "empire and interests" didnt' spring up overnight, so we cannot bring them home overnight. BUT, we can bring them home in a fashion that is consistent with the host companies taking over their OWN protection. We do not need bases and such in Japan, or South Korea or wherever.

Now, remember. The piece is written from a perspective of "his" opinion. One could argue that it is our very foreign policy that is dangerous.

See, we have gotten so use to the constant wars, that it is "normal", and to reverse that thought is considered "dangerous" and we use arguments like "losing jobs or protecting our interests" as arguments to stay.

I suggest that is our very foreign policy that has created MOST of our conflicts. Not sure if anyone knows this, but the military complex is a HUGE RACKET. China and Russia both are superpowers, and they are not prancing around the globe with 700 bases. We spend more on our defense than ALL countries combined... YET, we are loosing our superpower status somewhat to other countries. Why? Our Foreign Policy and our Money Policy ---> this cannot be disputed.

We agree on most of this .

Most of our foreign bases are not benefitting the USA . But some are nessasary .

To keep giving in to the radical bullys is dangerous .

I wonder what supporters of this hateful group would say if China went in bombed Saudi Arabia ran all muslims out and took over Mecca or Medina sites ? Then we moved in and stuck a big JEWISH TEMPLE right on top of it ! Wonder why we would choose that most Holy site to all muslims site to do this .

This is what happened in Israel . Israel was like all other places the muslims rule, it was a dead vacant poverty stricken lot until the jews came back planted and built it up .

Muslims are not our allies, never have been never will be . jews have always been our allies and hopfully always will if we are wise .

I don't think Muslims are our allies either - specifically Saudia Arabia - but it seems our government doesn't think so.

I don't keep up with Israel a lot - but when did Muslims take over most of Israel? Real question - not baiting and how did it happen?