Paul's foreign policy ideals are the latter.
---
I agree ... Pual's foreign policy ideals reflect patriotism
On Oct 19, 1:29 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And don't confuse Moonbattery with patriotism.
>
> Paul's foreign policy ideals are the latter.
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The advent of the internet, and intermingling of financial instruments
> > have created a global environment
> > ---
> > yeah ... one that continues to cost the US a bundle
>
> > don't confuse non-interventionism and protectionism with isolationism
>
> > On Oct 19, 8:45 am, Coach <coachl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The advent of the internet, and intermingling of financial instruments
> > > have created a global environment. We cannot ignore that fact and see
> > > no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. The Constitution of our
> > > founding fathers was written in the 18th century; times change and so
> > > must we or be left behind.
>
> > > On Oct 18, 9:11 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think that we are looking for "entangling alliances". Paul is
> > an
> > > > isolationist, and that won't work in 2012.
>
> > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:43 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > Paul clearly doesn't have a good handle on foreign policy
> > > > > ----
> > > > > hogwash
> > > > > "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with
> > > > > any portion of the foreign world."
> > > > > ~ George Washington
>
> > > > > I have written before about the critical need for Congress to
> > reassert
> > > > > its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to
> > > > > recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic
> > > > > and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the
> > > > > legislature and not the executive.
>
> > > > > I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for
> > peace
> > > > > and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and
> > > > > military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
>
> > > > > Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means
> > > > > America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in
> > the
> > > > > internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate
> > > > > ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade,
> > travel,
> > > > > communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
>
> > > > > Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy
> > > > > position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce,
> > > > > and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with
> > > > > none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves
> > and
> > > > > not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of
> > > > > foreign attachments."
>
> > > > > Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking
> > > > > them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but
> > > > > conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy?
> > > > > Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were
> > > > > wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least
> > > > > have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
>
> > > > > Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have
> > > > > changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the
> > 1700s.
> > > > > The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our
> > founding
> > > > > era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First
> > > > > amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much
> > > > > offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second
> > amendment,
> > > > > and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by
> > > > > its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
>
> > > > > It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles
> > > > > simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify
> > > > > interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the
> > > > > Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world
> > > > > cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist
> > > > > foreign policy.
>
> > > > > It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign
> > policy
> > > > > that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to
> > > > > understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time
> > > > > and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts,
> > > > > whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely
> > > > > time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars
> > > > > should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
>
> > > > > The American Journal of Political Science[187] found Paul the most
> > > > > conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.[188]
> > > > > Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[189] made him the only 2008
> > > > > Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War
> > > > > Resolution during 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United
> > > > > Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons
> > > > > of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[190] He endorses free
> > > > > trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade
> > Agreement
> > > > > (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He
> > > > > endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal
> > > > > aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty;[191] he voted for the
> > > > > Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of
> > > > > Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11
> > > > > attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the
> > > > > president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific
> > > > > terrorists. An opponent of the Iraq War and potential war with Iran,
> > > > > he has also criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the
> > > > > Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist
> > reprisals
> > > > > against Americans. Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend"
> > > > > and that it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how
> > > > > Israel runs her affairs".[192]
>
> > > > > On Oct 18, 10:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > You know, I took an oath to myself that I would never venture back
> > over
> > > > > to
> > > > > > Michael's frequently posted "cut and paste" articles which appear
> > on
> > > > > > LewRockwell.com . Rockwell himself is a danger to America, and
> > to
> > > > > steal a
> > > > > > Sinclair Lewis line that Margolis has already plagerized, "When
> > > > > socialism
> > > > > > and communism hit our shores and invade our land, they will be
> > wrapped in
> > > > > > the guise of flag waving patriotism and somehow as "The Saviour".
>
> > > > > > There are so many misstatements of truth, or facts taken out of
> > context
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Margolis's article, but this is typical of most everything that
> > appears
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Rockwell's blog. In my attempt to just ignore the hateful tripe
> > and name
> > > > > > calling that Margolis makes during his rant, by example Margolis's
> > > > > "facts"
> > > > > > are clearly incorrect:
>
> > > > > > *"I do a good deal of writing and broadcasting for international
> > media.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > it's not always easy to explain the quirks of our vast, complex
> > nation."*
>
> > > > > > No, Margolis doesn't....Maybe in his own mind.
>
> > > > > > *"The same malevolent Persians now stand accused of plotting to
> > > > > assassinate
> > > > > > the Saudi ambassador to Washington by using Mexican drug cartel
> > hitmen
> > > > > > organized by a lame-brained used car salesman that strongly
> > suggests the
> > > > > > concocters of this melodrama need some new scriptwriters."*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > So. Margolis had declared the allegations against Iran and the
> > > > > > assassination attempt against the Saud Ambassador as being bogus?
> > We
> > > > > > completely write off the purpoted attempt by another Nation-State
> > to
> > > > > execute
> > > > > > an Ambassador on our own shores? No investigation? No credibility
> > > > > because
> > > > > > the Republican candidates noted the allegations in their most
> > recent
> > > > > debate?
>
> > > > > > *"One of our dimmest members of Congress – I'm ashamed to say from
> > New
> > > > > York
> > > > > > – Rep. Pete King, just called the Iranian-Mexican imbroglio an act
> > of
> > > > > war.
> > > > > > On to Tehran!"*
>
> > > > > > Let me make sure I understand. Margolis is claiming that an
> > attempted
> > > > > > murder of a foreign diplomat within our borders is not an act of
> > war?
> > > > > > Thus, the allegation that Rep. King is a dumbass?
>
> > > > > > *"There was hardly any mention of the endless wars in Iraq and
> > > > > Afghanistan
> > > > > > that are bleeding America's economy, or growing US military
> > involvement
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Yemen and sub-Saharan Africa, as witnessed by President Barack
> > Obama's
> > > > > > announcement last Friday that 100 US special forces where being
> > sent to
> > > > > > obscure places in Central Africa. On to Bangui! (where?)"*
>
> > > > > > Hmmmm......Let's review. The Iraq war was pretty much over 3.5
> > years
> > > > > ago,
> > > > > > and Iraq is pretty much self governing these days. We have had
> > less than
> > > > > > 15,000 troops there this year, with an estimation of 4,100 troops
> > there
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 2012. What war in Iraq? One hundred special ops guys in Uganda
> > > > > constitutes
> > > > > > a war in Margolis's mind?
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > *"Former senator Rick Santorum, a darling of the religious far
> > right,
> > > > > > thought exiled ex-Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf was still in
> > power
> > > > > in
> > > > > > Islamabad. Michele Bachmann stumbled around all those strange
> > foreign
> > > > > names
> > > > > > and seemed to be talking in tongues."*
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0 comments:
Post a Comment