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."*
>
> As much as I detest Rick Santorum, (and I ain't no big fain of Michele
> Bachmann, this is flat out prevaricate and untruthful. I did see the
> debate, and Santorum made no such comment or insinuation.
>
> *"As author Kevin Phillips has documented, Republicans have become a
> theological party of the Christian white far right in America's
> heartland.These militant Bible Belt born-again fundamentalists are ardent
> Zionists and backers of America's military-security establishment. One
> recalls the fateful prediction of Sinclair Lewis,* "
>
> Ooooh! Let's quote Kevin Phillips! Phillips is an avowed communist, now
> writing for "Democracy Now!" Talk about reputable! Phillipps cannot
> document his ass from a hole in the ground. Phillips has documented no such
> thing, and this one statement makes everything that Margolis writes, as
> suspect.
> *"Only two candidates showed a firm grasp of world affairs: Rep. Ron Paul
> and former US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. Paul is the most honest
> politician in Washington. He calls for an end to America's foreign wars,
> eliminating the Federal Reserve bank, lowering America's foreign profile and
> rebuilding the run-down Unites States. "*
> **
> * "Because of these heresies, Dr. Paul, who is hugely popular among the
> young and independents, is systematically ignored or scorned by
> establishment media, even during TV debates. *
> *"*
> * "**Jon Hunstsman's Mormon faith is demeaned by many Protestants as a
> "cult." Romney is also a Mormon, a Church Elder and former missionary. Both
> are unpopular with rightwing Christian Protestants. Cain is a Baptist
> minister.* "
>
> Okay, now we can really see Margolis's agenda. He is an isolationist
> Moonbat, parading as a moderate and attempting to sway the Republican Party
> with far fetched nonsense. Paul clearly doesn't have a good handle on
> foreign policy, as has been demostrated here in this group for months, yet
> Michael would cite someone like Margolis who is a Moonbat, as being
> credible?
>
> Why do I waste my time on such nonsense?
>
> The remainder of Margolis's rant is nothing less than hate filled spew, and
> an attack on basic American platitudes.
>
> Both Paul and Huntsman are far too moderate for Republican party core
> voters, 44% of whom are believed to be born-again Evangelicals.
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:29 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > These militant Bible Belt born-again fundamentalists are ardent
> > Zionists ... I pray New York City will be somehow saved.
> > ----
> > let the division and civil war begin
>
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Oct 17, 11:15 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Interestingly, today's small town/rural/born-again Republicans closely
> > resemble and hail from the same roots as America's Prohibitionist
> > anti-drinking movement of the 1920's. Both today's religious right and the
> > Prohibitionists were determined, Taliban-style, to punish sinful city
> > dwellers for having too much fun, as the devilish H.L. Mencken pointed
> > out.The Prohibitionists Are Back!by Eric Margolis
> > > 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.
> > > As a native New Yorker, I try to explain how this great island metropolis
> > off the New Jersey coast is physically in America, but it's not
> > intellectually or emotionally part of the United States.
> > > New York is cosmopolitan, educated, outward-looking and liberal – unlike
> > much of the rest of inward-looking America, which considers the Big Apple a
> > den of Godless moral depravity and a cesspool political vice.
> > > In return, New Yorkers look down on the rest of America (San Francisco,
> > Chicago, and the Pacific Northwest excepted) as "flyover country" populated
> > by rednecks, hicks, and holy rollers. Crude stereotypes, of course, but
> > there's some substance to these nasty views.
> > > While at a base in Missouri during my Army service during the Vietnam
> > era, I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut about being a Manhattanite
> > after a sergeant asked me where I hailed from and then yelled out, "hey,
> > guys, we got one of those rich shits from New York." I got pummeled by my
> > brothers in arms from Arkansas and Alabama.
> > > The last debates by Republican presidential candidates disturbingly
> > reinforced the party's lack of interest in or knowledge of the outside
> > world.
> > > Leading candidates Mitt Romney, pizza mogul Herman Cain, and Texas tough
> > guy Rick Perry barely mentioned world affairs, except to heap threats on the
> > wicked Iranians.
> > > 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.
> > > 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!
> > > When the Republican candidates did mention the outside world, it was to
> > proclaim their undying loyalty to Israel, or to bluster, as Romney did, "the
> > 21stcentury must be an American century." But no mention of where the money
> > would come from to keep the world in the American Raj.
> > > It takes lots of hard cash to run a world imperium. Right now, Washington
> > has to borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends from China and Japan.
> > > One wishes the candidates had leveled with Americans and talked about the
> > urgent need for a war tax to pay for America's foreign military operations
> > that are now piled onto the gargantuan national debt.
> > > Romney announced a slate of foreign affairs advisors drawn from the ranks
> > of the Bush administrations wildest Islamophobic neoconservatives, wanna be
> > West Bank settlers, and extreme right-wingers. The same crowd that brought
> > us Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Iraq, and now beats the war drums over Iran.
> > > 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?)
> > > Aside from macho chest-pounding over American greatness, some of the
> > leading candidates made monkeys of themselves when talking about the outside
> > world.
> > > As a lifelong moderate Republican, I cringed with embarrassment at these
> > later-day Dan Quayles.
> > > 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.
> > > Herman Cain laughed off his own ignorance of foreign policy, making fun
> > of the name "Uzbekistan." Swaggering Texas governor Perry confused India and
> > Pakistan,
>
> ...
>
> 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.
WordPress.com
