My knowledge of history is well rooted, deep, analytical, and for the most part accurate.
I would agree with you that if this IS indeed his position A. It's not realistic and B. Yes, it's kooky. But I seriously doubt that it's actually his official position.
Again, I seriously doubt that he wants to bring each and every soldier who is serving overseas home. And what if the U.S. starts bringing home some of its overseas forces? What nation is poised to go on the offensive and take over Europe? Asia? Save for maybe Russia or China, the U.S. military is the only military in the world who can go on the offensive, take, and hold lots of real estate. Again, I fail to see what other "power" is out there which poses an immediate threat.
My title? You know what I had to do to earn the right to call myself Doctor?
I never bother mentioning my credentials, but since you did yes, I think I do post with some degree of gravitas.
I've had to read thousands of books and articles, do extensive research, endure God-knows how many exams to earn that title. Many on the founders. And I'm pretty ******* proud of it.
And you don't have an "agenda" Please.
Let's just review here the history lesson I gave not too long ago to your so-called "understanding" of history.
Again, I don't know where you get your "history" from, but this claim is downright 100% specious. There's a big difference in protecting commerce and occupying foreign countries vis a vis imperialism. Your simplifying and broadly generalizing the notion that the United States has sought out to be an empire since its inception. Further, I think your simplifying Paul's stance here--he wants a saner, more rational and more likely CHEAPER [lolol Republicans are for smaller government] system of foreign aid.
hahaha. So says the poster who claims that his support for Paul is due to being a "Democrat." Yes, maybe NeoConservative might be a meaningless label, but I think it's more precise than "conservative," or "liberal." A NeoConservative is nothing more than a big-government liberal regarding foreign policy. It's why the R-Party is hypocritical in this instance.
But your partially correct here, but again mostly wrong. Actually history supports the argument that the United States should not be pursuing an Empire. Name for me one Empire which has not fallen. There's a laundry list of empires which have fallen because of overextension of military sources and a subsequent domestic economic collapse. You willfully love the "American Empire" and wish to see it expand despite the mountains of historical evidence which reveals that large, ever-growing empires erode freedom at home and eventually collapse.
Since when has the foreign policy option been to "get along" verses to "not get along." It's not just about "getting along," it's about not being aggressive when unnecessary and priorities. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "getting along" with anybody, it had everything to do with accessing oil for large oil companies. Foreign policy isn't just about "getting along" verses "not getting along"
And supporting an aggressive pax Americana policy isn't? What color is the sky in your world? What's foolish is to pursue a foreign policy [in the middle east], which caused a lot of the problems with terrorism in the first place. I mean, there's an historical parallel [the CIA calls it "blowback] between terrorism and imperialism. And you want to continue being an imperial power? What about democracy, freedom, sovereignty, and all those values which our founding fathers valued? No, what's an insult is continuing to support arguably a foreign policy which our founding fathers would abhor.
Again, you are grossly misinformed regarding the history of foreign policy of this country. Please. For the love of all things holy, pick up an American history survey. Comparing the foreign policy of this country for the first 50 years with the foreign policy of the past 50 years is like comparing an battleship with a turnip. You are simplifying and making bogus comparisons. This country's foreign policy in the 20th century was significantly different from the early republic's approach to foreign policy. It's just misleading to compare the foreign policy of Teddy Roosevelt with Thomas Jefferson. There's no real valid comparison because the two men lived in much, much different worlds.
Please, please, please do yourself a favor and at least pick up a U.S. history survey, because this claim is tantamount to arguing that the U.S. foreign policy hasn't changed in its 200+ year history. It's not as simple as arguing that "intervention" has always been the policy, therefore, it should continue. It is simply not true that this country was "pursuing an Empire" from the beginning.
We are going to conduct open trade but we are not going to commit our military overseas or on the high seas to protect the trade routes and infrastructure.
What an absolutely silly question. The war in Iraq didn't have anything to do with securing trade routes. His point is that through a strong Navy [something which hasn't changed about foreign policy] and securing trade routes should be a priority, But occupying foreign countries in the name of large corporations should not. Iraq has zip. Nada. Nothing. to with trade routes. You're conflating and simplifying the economic reasons a nation state chooses to go to war. You assume that the occupation of Iraq has everything to do with access to oil--no, it's NOT NECESSARY. It's not as if there aren't other sources for oil in the world. It has everything to do with getting large corporations access to that oil; name for me one American besides the big oil Execs who will benefit from this policy? Not one.
Bottom line: If you're going to cite "history" for your arguments, gumbeau, it's better to come to the discussion better informed. BTW, if you pick up the American history survey, you'll find out that this country did not begin a pursuit of a global empire until after 1900. And one final point: you seem to be all supportive of growing the American empire, when history is replete with evidence that empires adopt oppressive governments; furthermore, I could not think of anything more UN merikan [tm-W] than invading and occupying foreign powers and forcing our culture and government on others in the name for a buck. I'm all for intervention, when it's absolutely necessary and it benefits the NATION. Paul's point is that true, the U.S. inherited the duty of keeping trade routes open from the British--I have no problem with keeping a large navy and securing trade routes. Knocking off tin-pot dictators in the name of large corporations and keeping large standing armies in foreign lands =/ keeping "trading routes" open, so your comparison is flawed.
And from my understanding of history and the founders, seeking and empire would completely belie their political values--having just broken the yoke of tyranny from the BRITISH empire.
The United States has not always been "aggressive" in the name of just economic interests. And whose "economic" interests are we serving in Iraq specifically? Just because the United States has fought wars or has been expansionist for economic interests doesn't make it right. You're seriously conflating the history of foreign policy over the past 107 years verses what the founders envisioned.
One. more. Time. Jefferson, Madison, most of the founders agreed that a strong Navy was necessary to protect trading routes. I do agree with you on this point. The United States has followed Mahan's advice that a strong navy will ensure security and prosperity.
But the United States did not invade Iraq to protect the high seas. The United States didn't even invade Afghanistan to protect commercial interests.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
