Posted on 07/31/2007 12:51:59 PM PDT by traviskicks
I think it’s a real stretch to compare Kucinich to Bush. Consider the fact that Iraq happened without UN approval.
Anyways, if Paul is so different than Kucinich, how come they vote in tandem on almost all foreign policy bills in Congress?
It is the wealthiest nation on earth because it engages in commerce on a vast scale and it is the most powerful ebcause of its wealth.
That commerce is an engine of prosperity, but it carries with it externalities as well.
Human nature being what it is, wealth and success foster resentment and envy among the poor and the incompetent.
America has two choices: to pretend the outside world does not exist and discontinue all external intercourse including commerce, or to interact with the outside in order to shape it to our interests.
Since the first days of the Republic the US has chosen the latter course and the Constitution under which we live was drafted precisely because the Republic chose this latter course.
America is the responsible world actor because no one else is up to the task.
*applause*
Kucinich and Paul may agree on many aspects of foreign policy— that does not make them partners.
Oddly, the democratic party was once the party of seeking out involvement abroad and this idea was considered liberal. Now, somehow, the concept of limiting our foreign policy enterprises is seen as the work of the liberals, while it is in fact (and always has been) the conservative approach.
Conservatives have been somehow snookered into accepting that it’s pretty much always in America’s best interest to intervene militarily and otherwise—Eisenhower’s words ring prophetically.
As for terrorists— I’d like to kill them all too. But that is sheer fantasy, under current conditions. Maybe we can kill enough to drive them underground for a decade or so, but this shit will start up again all over.
Possibly the only long-term solution is to cut off the middle east from our dollars and our interests- forever.
I’m not sure where in the Constitution it calls for the US to spread democracy abroad.
Were Hitler alive(not comparing Paul to Hitler, mind you) his Wikipedia page would say he was the savior of Germany.
Does not prohibit it either. We learned from WWII that standing up allies after defeating the enemy is worthwhile. It was true then and remains so today.
Yes, but we utterly destroyed those nations, including their cities, infrastucture, governments and most of their fighting age men before we undertook the task of rebuilding them in the democratic image.
The current conditions at play in the ME are not to this standard.
...and that's all it is, LIP service. Blackbird.
I agree. I actually think that each has their own distinct foreign policy and cannot really be compared. I was just comparing them to illustrate the similarities between Kucinich and Bush, who most find to have very different policies. Likewise, even though there is some agreement between Paul and Kucinich, they have very different foreign policies.
Anyways, if Paul is so different than Kucinich, how come they vote in tandem on almost all foreign policy bills in Congress?
Because Paul opposes foreign intervention and Kucinich opposes foreign intervention only when it is a cause championed by a Republican President. I would assume they wouldn't be in agreement as much under a Democratic regime.
True. They are not to that standard. We also did not expend 400,000 of our bravest men to accomplish that destruction.
That's a false choice. The Cold War is over. We can trade without bending every government to our will.
Agreed. But the number of America’s war dead is not the only issue here, obviously. It is the goal and and how it is being accomplished. AND, it is the question of whether the goal of a stable, democratic Middle East, is possible.
I am an open-minded skeptic on the issue.
A reasonable position to have.
There it is in a NUT shell folks, the 21st Century "CONservative". Thanks for making our point. Blackbird.
This reality long preceded the Cold War and will continue as long as there are nations.
Remember Commodore Perry.
We can trade without bending every government to our will.
We don't have to bend every government to our will and never have had to. But we have always needed to make examples of some and we will always have to.
The Constitution authorizes the Federal government to conduct foreign policy.
And so it does.
More likely, Novak sees a gap in the Republican party where his own views are: Paul is on one side, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain are on the other, and nobody shares Novak's opinion about foreign policy.
So Novak decides to talk up the maverick in hopes that support for Paul will nudge the party closer to what he himself believes.
What you wrote, then, is different from what you are writing now. The truth is that this is a matter of degree. We can have trade without the level of foreign entanglement we have today.
Right, but it doesn’t say what KIND of foreign policy to conduct. That issue is and always will be up for debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.