Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
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 one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s 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.
Huh ???
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?
Ping
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.
Sincerely,
GraceG
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.
AMEN.
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.
A propos of nothing, won’t it be a happy day when the oil under those chuckleheads runs out? Then we can go back to ignoring them, and they can go back to living in tents.
Ah, B_H, the Constituion is one of those things we here at FR like to bleat about, but we’d crap our pants if the Government actually operated by its rules.
But didn’t George Washington and many others warn us about becoming entangled in foreign issues (wars and squabbles)?
There are too many misconceptions about Afghanistan and Pakistan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/
According to him, yes.
http://buchanan.org/blog/middle-american-news-interviews-presidential-hopeful-rep-ron-paul-870
As far as Iran, we need to simply back off. We need sail our navy away from their shores. Sanctions are strengthening their extremist leaders, not hurting them. Our harsh rhetoric helps inflame nationalistic sentiment among a young and energetic population that would otherwise be pro-American. If we trade with Iran and have open communication, their people are likely to vote [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad out, and elect a much more favorable government.
On North Korea
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-06/ron-paul-north-korea-is-not-a-threat-to-the-us/
Instead of either attacking people or giving them money, just offer out friendship. If they want to trade with us, fine.
(there are many quotes like this but most I'm finding are on sites note welcome here like Lew Rockwell..)
Almost as misquoted as Eisenhower’s ‘military industrial complex’ quote. In Washington’s speech, he was addressing a very specific conflict between Spain and England. He also mentioned in the same speech honoring treaties and holding threats to account.
Or we just have the intestinal fortitude to use our own. Until then, it is naive to not acknowledge the interdependence.
So if your neighbor fails to have his pit bull vacinated for rabies and then fails to keep it under control and it gets loose goes down to the local playground mauls your child it’s your fault for letting the child out of your yard?
Yet he was fine with supporting to use the Authorization of the Use of Force in his vote on Afghanistan (not a declaration of war) of course, then he spoke against it, then he supported it when comparing to Iraq.. he went back and forth on that. I noticed you didn't bold this:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
Breach of treaties and truces are 'offenses against the Laws of Nations' and congress is given a separate clause to 'define and punish' said offenses.
no!, the pit bull must be killed as it is a real threat.
ping
I agree with killing those that would harm us. But, do we not owe it to our soldiers and their civilians to go in with complete force and end it quickly and as efficiently as possible, short of that, should we not leave?
Back to your analogy of the pit bull. You would not approach the pit bull that just mauled your child and taunt or attack it half heartedly, you would terminate it.
We agree there, but then that makes you not agree with Doctor Paul, who thinks we don’t have to do anything, accept stay home and guard our ‘fence’.
That should be the decision of the Generals and commanders how to handle it. Going in with 'full force' sometimes requires greater logistics and becomes a greater danger to our troops. A good analogy is one of the left's complaints about the 'under-armored' military vehicles in the initial invasion of Iraq. The left likes to say we didn't go in with the tools we needed, but the commanders ordered lighter vehicles to move quicker and not get bogged down in the sand, thus putting them at greater danger. This is something that the commanders should decide, not politicians like Obama or Paul or anyone else. Both are calling for different courses of action but neither are asking "what do our commanders think is BEST?" They are just playing philosophy games.
No. Actually, it makes good sense to do it that way. Then, as GraceG suggested, we unleash the hounds of hell on any nation who either attacked us or supported any terrorist group who did.
Our Navy and Marines could STILL make port calls and project a presence in various places, as well as being that force in readiness. But since the Army is seen much differently than the Marine Corps IT would have to stay home until war broke out. The army is, as has been true though the ages, an OCCUPYING force, which does not make foreign nations feel warm and fuzzy toward it. The Amphibious Ready Groups are seen in a whole different light. While they can be used as “forced entry” troops to make it safe for the army to land and occupy, they are ALSO seen as humanitarian in nature, which tends to enhance their reputation.
“Breach of treaties and truces are ‘offenses against the Laws of Nations’ and congress is given a separate clause to ‘define and punish’ said offenses.”
Yeah, Matt, that’s what the Afghan resolution was: a punishment expedition. Then we started getting bogged down and now look at where we are. I think the resolution was more akin to “hot pursuit” than anything else and that’s fine. But when we have time to sit and mull things over and jawjack about stuff, we have time to draft a proper declaration of war. Like we should have in Iraq if things were so bad FOR US there.
On THAT you are as wrong as you can be, either through ignorance or design, you pick it. RP does not believe in waiting for our shores to be breached. He believes in taking the fight to the enemy, JUST AS WE DID IN WWII. The thing he wants is a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO DO SO. That is, a proper declaration of war which commits the Congress and the nation to a swift and sure VICTORY, and which does NOT give congress an out to waffle as the rats did in Iraq.
That is absolutely fair to consider and discuss. My concern with that is that we already have a legal and actionable document with the Authorization of the Use of Force. Going back to the drawing board and changing this to a Declaration of War has several challenges, not in the least is that you now have a bunch of politicians in DC given the opportunity to tweak and modify action orders and even dumping on those in the field, simply to satisfy the political winds of pop culture versus simply being held accountable for the authorization they already approved. The other issue I see is that a Declaration of War is generally against a specific state or regime versus our current conflict deals with an enemy that crosses or doesn’t bear allegiance to specific states and/or whose regimes change names faster than mafia families.
This is why I will never consider voting for Ron Paul and consider the folks who support him loonies. Same for Libtards. They don’t seem to get it. This isn’t a law enforcement situation. Its a war.
I expect that may be true for a majority of Freepers also so I realistically can not expect people to react to the loss of an intangible concept the same way that I would react to the loss of a tangible lifestyle. That being said, even allowing for an ignorance factor, it really rankles me to see another "Conservative" ripping at any person's attempt to provide a straw for us to grasp as this ship is floundering in the communist storm that is gripping this nation.
True conservatives need to swallow their spit and get united against the common foe instead of wasting our ire on the likes of Ron Paul or this country will be gone forever.
We ALSO have a pres__ent who has said that his aim is NOT to win in Afghanistan. To me, that means he needs to get our people OUT of there NOW, since he has undermined our whole purpose for going in there to begin with. I was OK with going after the AQ and talibunnies when we first entered, with the goal of getting rid of them and perhaps being able to kill bin Laden. But after we did 2 of 3, the mission changed into a NON-MILITARY mission and at that point we should have left. You do NOT use military force to monitor elections or “build democracies” or any such other thing, even if it were Constitutional, which, of course, it is NOT.
Sorry, but keeping military forces where their mission is no longer a valid military mission makes no sense and gets folks killed when some jackass who stole an election decides to change the ROE with little to no notice and STOP protecting our forces by allowing them to protect themselves with artillery and close air support and whatever else is needful. They need to come home NOW. So do the guys and gals in Iraq, since we achieved our stated goal of getting the Hussein regime out of power and seeing Saddam hanged. The rest is NOT OUR MISSION.
With respect to a Declaration of War, pass the word that we will go to war with any nation that harbors and/or fails to root out terrorists who attack us from within their borders. That should cure that problem, I would think.
Where exactly do you see it as a war any more? It is NOT, not any longer. It has evolved into a NON-MILITARY mission and our pres__ent has already decided that we are not (if ever we were) in it to win. So please explain why we should still be in either place. With specifics, if you would, as to who the enemy is, why the current governments cannot take care of their OWN defense, and just where in OUR Constitution FedGov is allowed to behave like this. ESPECIALLY when FedGov has REFUSED to secure our very OWN borders against terrorist groups penetrating it illegally.
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.