Posted on 07/03/2009 9:11:35 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.
Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."
Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.
Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.
But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions...
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world...
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law...
4. We do not engage in nation-building...
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Exactly.
We are fighting in the middle east and yet taking in refugees from the same area. If their is a war on terrorism, then why allow them into the country.
Does the immigration agents know which are the good and bad muslims? Horse crap.
We are giving 24 million dollars on top of the 2 billion already allocated to the Palestinian’s to bring some 200k people to the US this year. WHY?
Are these not the same rock and rocket throwers who terrorize Israel every chance they get?
Why do we want them here? What value?
We are supporting terrorism by allowing them into the US. Which means, we will be fighting them there and here soon enough.
FWIW to the young Freepers who don’t know what a “double entendre” is, it is French for “two entrances” and was first used to describe shotgun houses which had a door at the front and back.
parsy, the entomologist
One who studies the origins of words, right?
Dang, that GRE study book is sure working wonders here, LOL.
Wait, my bad. That’s etymologist. Entomologist? Parsifal, are you studying insects?
[Thank God I’m applying for a MS in a technical program and so my GRE verbal doesn’t matter as much.]
Not really.
“Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.”
Ummm....no, there are a great many places we ignore. Darfur, for example. We aren’t trying to police India or Venezuela.
But when the oil our economy runs on is threatened in GW1, or when we need to shake things up after an attack on our soil killing 3000 people - then YES! Take the fight to them, and fight them on THEIR turf.
Perhaps Paul would like to wait until we have suicide attacks in our schools, or allow the terrorists a secure home base to plan future assaults.
In that broad of sense, no they cannot.
Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."
And yet even John Quincy Adams questioned the ever-increasing extortion of the Barbary Pirates. Thomas Jefferson then aimed to put an end to the pirates by launching an undeclared war. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution.
Fortress America didn't work in the days leading up to WWII and it certainly won't work now. In today's day and age, if America sticks her head up her collective ass, the world will be full of Barbary Pirates demanding tribute.
Good thing Obama is an internationalist.
Now we have given Iraq its start, I totally agree with Ron Paul on all points listed here. If we have alliances, then we should honor them, but our being the world police force or the personal security force for Europe and elsewhere only makes others weak while making us poor. It's certainly long past time to walk away from NATO.
There is not one word for Obama.
Not. One. Word.
I can only assume he supports the current policy -- whatever it is.
He mentions Honduras not at all and only mentions Mohammad Mosaddeq, Obama's favorite Iranian. You know him, the great parliamentarian who was "democratically elected" although that is a bit misleading:
According to Ervand Abrahamian: "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum — had been elected."Charming.
I could tear this idiotic anti-Semite's rant to pieces for the right price, but one piece of imbecilic nonsense: "We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations."
This geriatric crank doesn't actually look at the world. Trading IS interference. Starbucks is Imperialism. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do, your presence is interference. Look at Obama in Iran, he tried desperately not to interfere and they blamed it for him anyway.
BTW, what is Paul's opinion on Honduras? It'd be nice if his "philosophy" is to be adopted that he describe how it would be manifested with respect to situations that have occurred in the last half-century.
We will never know how many US-bound terrorists were killed while attending "IED 101" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect it's more than a couple.
Someone will, well or poorly. I trust us more to do it well than any other.
My nick reflects my former, overseas-servng occupation.
Hey, hasn’t Obama been staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn’t he want to invade Pakistan?
If Obama hasn’t been itching to interfere in Honduras, then what is that?
Isn’t Obama about to get into a war with North Korea? Doesn’t that get you off enough?
Recently Ron Paul has been busy telling everyone who will listen that Congress and Obama are destroying America from the inside. No nukes from other countries are really needed to destroy America and enslave us.
The real enemy is inside and in the White House.
Ron Paul has been one of the most consistent enemies of collectivism, socialism, and communism in the Congress. He identified our real mortal threat.
Amen.
Never again.
Or so I pray...
We were attacked mercilessly by foreigners who were in league with multiple nations. We took the war to them and have not been attacked in the same manner here since. Though they have tried, the fact that their entire leadership is hiding in holes in the ground and too busy fighting our forces in their own back yard has contributed to their inability to conduct major operations here.
Quite a few people thought like this prior to World War II...good thing they did not carry the day then. The attack that changfed their mind then, killed less Americans than 911.
At least three errors. I assume an invisible “j/k” hidden in that post.
But, if we didn't go kill them over there, we MUST have to have let them into the country?
The problem on 9/11 was that Americans were so conditioned by the government at all levels to be helpless sheep - passive crime victims. The people on the flight that crashed in PA realized after the first three hit that the government's promis of "We'll protect you" is just a hollow lie.
You are the one to protect you. That is why you should always be armed and never trust the government.
Where did you read that? Not in anything I have written, today or ever.
Exactly correct. It's bogus.
What I’m saying is: so what if they were US bound? Why would they have to be given entry? If we did not kill them over there, proper enforcement of immigration laws and rugged self reliance coupled with our natural right to defend ourselves - two things that “our” government has beaten out of us through generations of pussification - would take care of them.
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.