Skip to comments.Bombs and Bribes [Ron Paul]
Posted on 10/14/2009 8:56:48 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of promoting democracy. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When ones livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyones best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.
Ron Paul can be an idiot IMO.
Hey Ron, if the United States had engaged in 30 years of violent terrorism against China or Canada, or whoever else was lobbing those drone bombs on us, then I would understand that this is part of the deal, that we asked for it, and now we have to deal with it. Screw the Arabs, screw the muslims, they can all go to hell. Bomb the hell out of them, that’s all they understand.
We buy a lot of oil from countries that hate our guts.
How does trade promote allies ?
Is Syria, North Korea and Iran OK to trade with then, Ron?
RuPaul in top moral equivalence form. Last I checked, we do not have terrorists based in our territory that travel over to China to kill their soldiers.
Dear Mr. Paul,
Please focus on fiscal policy and the federal Reserve and STFU on foreign policy matters.
You are right.. Also a “Fortress America” would never work.. Especially in this day and age..
Voice of reason bump.
>> Does any rational person really believe that if tomorrow the United States pulled completely back from the world, withdraw all troops back to our borders. Completely stopped any international interaction that the Islamic Terrorist would give up and leave us alone for all time? They hate us simple because we exist, they hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our beliefs, they hate us because their lives would be meaningless without someone to HATE! <<
I would be all for pulling back completely from the middle east if we could end all immigration FROM there.
Also if the response to the next inevitable attack was “Total war, really old school style” on the country in question behind the attack. “Total War, really old school style” would mean you invade the country and “dispatch” every male over the age of 14 and then promptly leave after diving the country up to it’s neighbors.
The threat of doing that with the gumption to be able to do that would keep us safe, but I doubt we would be able to do that. So our current policy is the best alternative to that.
But most of all SCREW YOU RON PAUL!
"Article 1:Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Right now we need to stop pillorying our own fellow Conservatives if they are in line with the Constitution but out of step with our individual beliefs. To paraphrase an apt biblical saying; "if they are not against us, they are for us." This includes Ron Paul.