gumbeau
Pro-Bowler
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 0
Offline
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
If the surge "worked," why is the United States still in Iraq? Of course it worked, because the objective from the onset was to not leave anytime soon. Mission accomplished.
If the surge "worked," why is the United States still in Iraq? Of course it worked, because the objective from the onset was to not leave anytime soon. Mission accomplished.
I feel sorry for the parents spending money for their kids to attend your classes. I'm sure the kids are smart enough to see through you so it's only wasted time and money, fortunately.
So which way is it?
Ron Paul wants all the troops home or doesn't?
Europe is non-aggressive because the US is. The US maintains an extensive worldwide military presence so Europe doesn't have to. If we withdraw from Europe, what happens next?
If we withdraw from Korea what happens next?
If we withdraw from Japan?
If we pull the Navy away from the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the east coast of Africa?
Canada is fighting and dying in Afghanistan. They aren't non-aggressive.
The founders had no intention of global empire but they had every intention of protecting the economic interests of the United States from the very beginning. You are the one that cannot understand history. You have an agenda and you think your title makes your agenda correct.
You ignore the history that doesn't support your viewpoint. From the start the United States has pursued a very aggressive foreign policy, committing troops in harm's way for sometimes extremely trivial matters.
And what planet's history are you reading if you believe there are thousands of years of non-aggressive foreign policy?
The history is that aggressive foreign policy prevents large conflict and passive foreign policy results in horrible, all encompassing war.
The United States has been using it's military to protect its commerce since 1801. Before that the US paid bribes to avoid war because it was thought to be cheaper at the time. Now this might be Ron Paul's foreign policy except he specifically states he is against foreign aid to anybody that doesn't meet his rather strict requirements of :
1. Loved by all
2. No possibility of ever turning against the US.
RebSaint is reading my other posts into this one hence his reply. I am someone that believes in American Empire and that doesn't bother me one bit. I believe there is plenty of history to support my theory that the world is one long series of imperial struggles for supremacy. I'm not an idealist. There is going to be empires in competition. I much prefer the US to be a lone hyper-power exercising hegemony over areas important to US interests. I guess that makes me a 'Neocon' but I think they are pretty late to the party. Besides no one really even knows what 'Neocon' means anymore. Its just another meaningless label.
I've read plenty of history. History backs my viewpoint. I certainly understand people who idealistically wish for us 'to all get along'. I just don't believe it will ever happen. It certainly never has in the past recorded history.
I believe Ron Paul is playing on people's prejudices when you take his issues as a whole package. His foreign policy is downright naive and foolish.
As for reading the Founders, I have checked that box. I've also read what the founders did after they got what they were writing and fighting for. When you consider how weak the US was militarily during the first 50 years of existence the foreign policy looks astoundingly brash. And their foreign policy looked a lot more like Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Teddy, Franklin, and George W. Bush than it looks like Ron Paul's. Ron Paul's brand gets defeated at the polls most of the time. The American people aren't stupid, thank god.
The history of the United States is a history of intervention in the affairs of other nations from the time of the birth of the country.
How, exactly, do we accomplish the last paragraph of Paul's issue statement after reading everything above it?