- Oct 2, 2005
- Reaction score
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.
It's going to be the never-ending surge on some level: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.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.
And I feel sorry for you who doesn't have the mental veracity to debate me on the issues. You aren't the first poster on EE who has resorted to personal barbs and won't be the last.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.
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.So which way is it?
Ron Paul wants all the troops home or doesn't?
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.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.
My title? You know what I had to do to earn the right to call myself Doctor?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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"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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.How, exactly, do we accomplish the last paragraph of Paul's issue statement after reading everything above it?