'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice

The Washington Times ^ | 2009-07-01 | U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District

[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...

[AmishDude]

If Obama hasn’t been itching to interfere in Honduras, then what is that?

What? WHAT? Of course he's been interfering in Honduras.

It's been in all the papers. Or, if you don't read papers, (who does?) on the blogs.

Isn’t Obama about to get into a war with North Korea? Doesn’t that get you off enough?

Well, the Norks specifically threatened to send a missle to hit Hawaii. I would think that would be a casus belli for even the most ardent "non-interventionists".

But considering you mentioned them, why wouldn't Paul?

Recently Ron Paul has been busy telling everyone who will listen that Congress and Obama are destroying America from the inside.

He has? Funny, you'd think with the opportunity to get some significant column inches in the Washington Times, he'd mention them once. Just once. Especially when discussing "our" foreign policy.

Of course, he mentions "neocons in both the Republican and Democratic parties" and that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unless "neocon" means something else in his mind. I wonder what it could be...

Ron Paul has been one of the most consistent enemies of collectivism, socialism, and communism in the Congress. He identified our real mortal threat.

Then he might mention the recent "collectivist, socialist and communist" who was formerly president of Honduras. I'd look up his name, but Paul doesn't mention it in his article.

[dragnet2]

Ron Paul once again demonstrates 18th century logic in the 21st century.

His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.

Then tell me, if this is the reason why we should intervene on every other country on earth, why did we not intervene and march on Russia, China and a number of other countries that have nuclear weapons?

[parsifal]

Spelling ain’t my strong point.

parsy, who hasn’t even started drinking yet

[djsherin]

***In that broad of sense, no they cannot.***

And why is that?

***Fortress America didn’t work in the days leading up to WWII and it certainly won’t work now.***

We were attacked. We attacked back with overwhelming force and destroyed the enemy. Who is going to try that again?

***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.***

Who is advocating that? If America would allow her citizens to arm themselves on the open seas or hire security, then personally, I would love to see these pirates come up in their dinky little boats and try to take over a ship.

[rabscuttle385]

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.

DING DING DING!!!

[MichiganConservative]

What? WHAT? Of course he's been interfering in Honduras.

That's what you want, right? Or are you in favor of nonintervention in Honduras?

North Korea has threatened to nuke Hawaii, but that occurred after Obama threatened to blockade them. That was always considered an act of war in the past. The Democrat Party is back to its classic position of warmongering. Obama is clearly the aggressor with the "Norks".

I don't know why he didn't talk about honduras. Maybe because Obama has not used the excuse "If we don't fight the Hondurans down there, we'll have to fight them up here." argument, seeing as how that argument was the focus to the article.

[dragnet2]

Fortress America didn't work in the days leading up to WWII and it certainly won't work now.

You seem to forget, America was attacked by Japan.

In addition, if we would of had a strong military already in place, that war would have been over in record time. Another fact is, if Japan had seen we had a superior war ready military machine in place, they would have *never* attached us in the first place.

[dragnet2]

Er...”Attacked.”

[AmishDude]

That's what you want, right? Or are you in favor of nonintervention in Honduras?

The whole nonintervention meme is pure bovine feces. It's merely an excuse for tyrants to portray themselves as victims. You're stupid if you fall for it.

America must stand for liberty and cheer it when it manifests.

North Korea has threatened to nuke Hawaii, but that occurred after Obama threatened to blockade them.

which occurred after...which occurred after...

I notice that your chain of causes always stops with America doing whatever it chooses to do. There's always an excuse for tyrants, isn't there?

But now I know, if a country threatens economic sanctions, we can nuke them.

I don't know why he didn't talk about honduras.

Well, I'm sure you'll have to wait until he does before you know what to think of it.

[dragnet2]

North Korea has threatened to nuke Hawaii

And China threatened to nuke the west coast. What are you going to do about it?

Why didn't we intervene and march on Russia, China and a host of other nuclear countries?

[Sybeck1]

So there would be missles in Cuba if Paul was president in the 60’s?

[gusopol3]

Why didn't we intervene and march on Russia, China and a host of other nuclear countries?

Reagan did, at the critical moment, install Pershing missiles in Europe, which Paul opposed at the time, afraid it would upset the Russians. It's one of the reasons he quit the House for awhile. I respected the man for his integrity at one time, but glossing over this total lapse of judgment on his part ( as well as his Lincoln hatred) proves to me that he's a liar and a hypocrite.

[dcwusmc]

Why would we wish to be a “super power”??? What benefit does it provide beyond making small “manhood” idiots feel good about themselves? Certainly if we possess the means to decisively deal with threats to us as a nation or our people who travel abroad, then treat and trade with all other nations equally, there is NOTHING wrong with that... That is how we were supposed to be from the beginning.

[dragnet2]

So there would be missles in Cuba if Paul was president in the 60’s?

This isn't the past, this isn't the cold war, this isn't Cuba or the 1960s Cuban missile crisis.

Communist China has nuclear weapons, Russia etc, along with a host of other countries with extremely questionable leadership and motives. Why did Bush, or Clinton or who ever, not intervene and march on these countries?

[dragnet2]

Why didn't we intervene and march on Russia, China and a host of other nuclear countries?

Reagan did

Oh come now...Communist China, Russia and a host of other countries still have nuclear weapons. Why are we not intervening, and marching on these countries?

[Deb]

The benefits of being a "super power" come with the ability to defend our defenseless allies, keep the monstrous powers of China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran at bay and protect the American people from oblivion.

The day we lose our standing as "super power", and one of our enemies attains it, is the day America ceases to exist.

Ron Paul is a blithering fool and he is willing to gamble with the lives of 300 million Americans.

[dcwusmc]

There ARE NO benefits to being a “super power,” none whatsoever. It’s the same thing the old Roman Empire did and we are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE an Empire. We are a REPUBLIC, with a Constitution which very dramatically limits GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, including the authority to become an empire in all but name.

And if YOU want to defend our “defenseless” allies, then why don’t you go join THEIR armed forces? Why do I have to pay for THEIR defense so that they can sell their goods in MY country cheaper than they can be made here? Because they don’t have to pay the expenses for THEIR defense, because WE pay it. Thanks but no thanks. Keep your empire... but keep it OUT OF these United States.

[Mr. Jazzy]

Oh, and I forgot, the Second Amendment is also a product of "eighteenth century logic."

Actually, the Second Amendment was based on logic from the earliest times when man could use a weapon for defense of home and hearth. The Framers were just wise enough to enshrine this truth in the form of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Dr. Paul is naive to a fault. Do you honestly think that if we had never entered into the world scene, if we had let other nations control events outside our borders, that we would still be as powerful a nation? If we had stayed out of WWII and allowed fascistic powers to take over all of Europe and the far East, do you think that THEY would be satisfied and leave us to ourselves? Not a chance in hell and YOU know it. The same applies to communist aggression across the globe and the enemies here in the US that seek to destroy our freedoms. Dr. Paul makes compelling speeches and articles for reading, but the prospect of his type of world outlook is not rational when dealing with irrational enemies who use their own children as weapon platforms to deliver death to anyone who disagrees with their religion.

[Deb]

Fortunately no one has ever listened to tiny, empty voices like yours. Fortunately we feel the obligation to defend the world from bullies, then come home. It's the reason children around the world run to American soldiers instead of away from them.

I love the fact we kicked the asses of Germany and Japan then turned them into economic power houses and great friends.

I thank God for the good we do, no matter what the price. You wouldn't have any more money if we had lost the Cold War, but feel free to move to Switzerland. Their philosophy is perfect for you and they have CHOCOLATE!

[GBA]

Fortunately we feel the obligation to defend the world from bullies, then come home.

That's the problem. We don't come home. We are still in Europe. We are still in Japan. We are still in Korea. Etc.

We should enter into alliances with our friends and trading partners. And we should behave like you have written, but we don't. For a lot of reasons, namely a couple of world wars and a long cold war, we have taken over the defense of much of the world. Unfortunately, in doing so we have made our allies weaker and more dependent while we have made ourselves poorer.

Of course, we should be involved in the world and protect our interests and help our friends. But at what point is WWII over? At what point is the cold war over. At what point can we come back home? If our actions are a clue, the answer is never.