Posted on 07/19/2009 11:09:55 AM PDT by camp_steveo
"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.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
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." ...
more: http://mises.org/story/2514
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
I understand RP to believe in a srtict original FP. Many of you claim to be conservatives, but you follow whole-heartedly your Republican leaders who adhere to a new FP based on the belief that the US has been somehow ordained as the police of the world.
This could not be further from the intent of our founders.
I challenge any of you to defend your position against what RP has stated are what he believe to be the original foreign policy positions.
I look forward to your arguments, and I hope this is a learning experience for us all.
~SC
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
Talk about quoting Washinton out of context! Ron Paul doesn’t even quote a complete sentence. For shame Ron! Stop misrepresenting George Washington.
“For shame Ron! Stop misrepresenting George Washington.”
Washington’s farewell addess also warned against political parties and passing constitutional amendments.
Does Ron Paul support these positions as well? Or does he cherry pick his Washington?
You apparently don’t know your history worth a damn. The founders allied with France to win our independence. http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html
Then Jefferson made war on muslim pirates thousands of miles from our shore. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html Then we expanded into what was another country’s land (Spain’s) in Florida. We had to buy our way out of that one.
And no I don’t believe Team America World Police is the right policy. But attempting to make the foreign policy of the early Republic into a Paulian non-interventionist fantasy is inconsistent with the facts and the history. Conservatives know this stuff - you apparently do not.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
Talk about quoting Washinton out of context! Ron Paul doesn’t even quote a complete sentence. For shame Ron! Stop misrepresenting George Washington.
____________________________________
How exactly is that out of context?
Are you suggesting that this: “...so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements...” implies that we are the world’s police? I disagree.
To me, Washington is saying that we will uphold our end of any agreements, but we should not seek out further alliances.
We could easily withdraw our military forces from around the globe and still fulfill our obligations in those regions.
My opinion is that the US could change our FP to an original FP over a period of less than 10 years.
I am not saying, and I don’t believe RP is either, that we should abandon our stations around the world without setting in place a contingency.
In other words, it is very posible to take care of what we are currently engaged in, while working to end those engagements and while avoiding further entangling aliances.
“How exactly is that out of context?”
Ron Paul always quotes that sentence fragment from Washington, and never the whole sentence. And Ron Paul has never said he advocates winding down our foreign obligations as honor permits. He has given everyone the impression that he wants the USA to ditch its foreign obligations immediately. And that is something George Washington would have been strongly opposed to.
-
Simple its our job to be an interventionist nation. We are in about all the countries of the world. We are the world’s only supercop and we should provide the troops and money to carry out UN resolutions. We will do better than England is making sure the sun never sets on us. God Bless us everyone.
RKV,”And no I don’t believe Team America World Police is the right policy”
____________________
If you agree with my argument, then why argue against it?
The Proclamation of Neutrality 1793 as well as the Neutrality Act of 1794, in which George Washington declared that the US and all it’s citizens should remain neutral, backs up RP’s position of non-interventionism.
Also, from your link regarding Jefferson and the Barbary pirates:
“...Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain...During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect “American vessels...After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates.”
How would you have advised Jefferson? I would hardly consider this event in US history reflective of an “interventionist” foreign policy.
The one major issue that I cannot agree with my fellow Freepers on is our foreign policy. The Iraq and Afghan invasions were the dumbest foreign policy moves this country has made in a long time. You don’t fight a loosely organized band of loony religious terrorists by invading and occupying countries. It’s as if nobody in the military ever read Mao’s book on guerilla war. The guerillas will never stand up and face a regular army. They will retreat and wait for a better time and place to attack.
We are wasting our good men and women on something that has no end and no definitive objective. These wars are also bleeding us dry financially, and as with all government endeavors, present plenty of opportunities for scam artists and profiteers to rip off the taxpayers. Politicians don’t care about our troops. They care about campaign contributions from defense companies.
Then there is the issue of our government taking away our rights and justifying it by invoking the war on terror. What happens when our government turns on conservatives and declares us to be terrorists? When we stand by while the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been shredded in the name of Homeland Security, what will protect us from the all-powerful government we helped create? This blind trust in government when it goes to war puzzles me. Government lies all the time, and especially during wartime.
Finally, while our troops are guarding the borders of Iraq, building schools, and handing out trash cans as a public service (Is this really how conservatives want to see our militar being used?), our own borders are wide open. We are allowing more and more Muslims into our country. This is the biggest threat to US security; not what happens overseas. We are creating our very own Future Terrorists of America groups, and nobody seems to care.
I know that most of the people here disagree, but I think it is nuts to continue to expand our presence overseas. Foreigners are going to take over our country without even firing a shot while we are meddling in other countries trying to turn tribal cultures into Western-style democracies.
Look for youtube videos of what our troops are saying about the Afghan soldiers and police they are trying to help and train. It’s a joke. As our soldiers say, all the Afghan guys do is sit around and smoke pot all day. They are completely unreliable. It is an exercise in futility.
Ping
Owl558: “Washington’s farewell addess also warned against political parties and passing constitutional amendments.
Does Ron Paul support these positions as well? Or does he cherry pick his Washington?”
_________________________
Quite often RP speaks against both political parties. Personally, I would like to see an end to party politics. I am in favor of debating ideas, not letters beside someone’s name.
As for Constitutional amendments, the founders intentionally made it difficult to amend the USC. Why would anyone disagree with that?
You raised an important topic for conservative discussion but there will be fewer posts than on teen sex.
You may wat to research “Barbary Coast War” 1801 - 1805 under President Thomas Jefferson.
Read and research carefully. War was declared upon the US. Jefferson requested a Declaration of War, but since Congress did not give one, he released the captured pirates.
Ron Paul always quotes that sentence fragment from Washington, and never the whole sentence. And Ron Paul has never said he advocates winding down our foreign obligations as honor permits. He has given everyone the impression that he wants the USA to ditch its foreign obligations immediately. And that is something George Washington would have been strongly opposed to.
_____________________________________
Ron Paul - foreign policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4hKqTikqM
“I know that most of the people here disagree, but I think it is nuts to continue to expand our presence overseas.”
I’m quite sure you have the majority both here and in the country agreeing with you. But there is no similar majority to cut and run from existing treaty obligations without fair warning to our allies. And that is the primary reason Ron Paul is viewed as an extremist, and lost the Republican Presidential nomination.
And the extensive British counterterrorism/counterinsurgency experience was totally ignored, even by Gen. Petraeus in his early days (fortunately, he seemed to have learned from it), costing us greatly in Tal'Afar and Fallujah.
It's sadly pathetic how FReepers who complain about government waste will support a system where "success" for senior officers is often measured in how many dollars they can hand out, not actual progress, and how many projects get funded multiple times.
It’s as if nobody in the military ever read Mao’s book on guerilla war.
Actually, it's as if nobody SENIOR in the military has ever read much at all on these topics. Many of the junior to mid-level officers are sickened by it all.
One can definitely support the troops without supporting the way these wars have been executed.
EXACTLY!
Many FReepers who get their history lessons entirely from talk radio might be surprised to find that the war was a war declared upon us, not us upon them.
That's because this is an uncomfortable topic for "conservatives."
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.