jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (6 posts)

Responses to Ron Paul Explains: Isolationism vs Non-Interventionism

  1. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago

    from someone online...
    a pretty good synopsis of Ron Paul's real perspective...not MSM's or an opponent's

        Hank is back says:
        December 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm

        For those who are genuinely fearful of Ron Paul’s foreign policy and don’t HATE him for other reasons but using foreign policy for an excuse, I suggest you read the following:

        Ron Paul wants us OUT of the UN, so we can look after OUR own interests, and not THEIRS.

        Ron Paul wants to cut ALL foreign aid. Cutting foreign aid to Israel’s enemies is a net plus for Israel, even if we cut theirs as well.

        If Israel no longer receives foreign aid, they will be free to look after THEIR own interests, and not OURS.

        Israel has not acted against iran yet for the following reasons:

        They are part of the UN.

        They receive foreign aid from the US.

        They have received the go ahead to act against Iran from neither the UN nor the US.

        Here is how we fix those problems:

        We get out of the UN, and who knows? Israel may follow suit.

        We stop BRIBING (foreign aid) Israel not to act in their own interests.

        We mind our own business and let israel do what it feels it needs to do.

        The next questions that might arise are: Wouldn’t Iran still be a threat to us and Israel? Will we or israel be able to defend ourselves? Doesn’t Israel need our protection?

        These are all legitimate questions, but not a one of them can’t be answered satisfactorily.

        Yes, Iran, IF it gets SEVERAL working nukes, it MIGHt be a threat. We will give the fearful the benefit of the doubt and say that even if Iran only has one weapon, they are still very dangerous.

        But yes, we will be able to defend ourselves, because the US has a huge defense-shield network, and Israel has its own as well as ‘access’ to ours. The US has tens of thousands of its own nuclear weapons. Israel has 300 to 400 or more of its own nuclear weapons. Israel, ON ITS OWN, took out the entire Egyptian Air Force (the biggest, best trained, and most sophisticated Air Force in the middle East at that time) in a single day in 1967. Israel, ON ITS OWN, took out Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in 1981, despite the fact that Iraq’s main purpose of that program was a defense against Iran. Israel, ON ITS OWN, took out Syria’s nuclear weapons program in 2007.

        So, no, Israel does not need our protection. In fact, the recently retired head of Mossad (Israel’s version of the CIA) and current conservative Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have both stated that they can handle iran without America’s help.

        For those that are worried that iran may be a greater threat once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I say to them we have no choice, unless we want top stay there FOREVER and go BANKRUPT.

        It should also be noted that our presence in Iraq has only emboldened Iran because we took out Saddam and gave the Shiites of iraq the reins of government.

        For those concerned about cuts in the department of defense:

        The Department of Defense, like ALL government agencies, is full of graft, corruption, obsolete programs (like the F22 raptor), social engineering, and redundancies (like paying contractors TWICE to do a job ONCE). DoD pays contractors for equipment and services based on a set price, rather than market incentives. This leads contractors to charge more money for less quality, with no consequences. No bid contracts lack the competitiveness, efficiency, and quality associated with the free market.

        Military installments (900 in 100 countries) around the world would be shut down, including those in Germany, Japan, France, and Britain. The reason why these countries have such lousy militaries and need us to protect them is because we are there and they have grown dependent.

        Troop pay and Veteran benefits would not be cut, nor would body armor or necessary equipment.

        We spend half of the world’s military spending. Half of it could be cut without affecting our military presence, and a large portion of the rest could be cut without weakening our military might.

        As has been asked before: if you were Chuck Bronson living in a tough neighborhood, where would you keep your weapons? Locked in a safe back at home, or on the kitchen counters of friends, enemies, and strangers?

        Troops would be put on the border, thereby eliminating the need for a special border patrol and the DHS, and the National Guard would again be under the direction of State governors, eliminating the need for a federally directed FEMA.

        Putting troops on the border and around seaports would also eliminate the alleged threat posed by suitcase nukes.

        For those worried about Ron paul not going after this nations REAL enemies:

        Ron Paul voted to authorize going after Bin Laden and other members of the Al Qaeda network. Kill or capture. He also supports allowing privateers to do this much more efficiently than 150,000 troops on a nation building experiment.

        And for those who believe that Ron Paul blames this country for 9/11, here is the truth:

        Ron Paul has NEVER blamed the American people, the AMerican way of life, the American dream, or the troops for 9/11. He has blamed the US government. If it is okay to blame the feds for the economic crash, the poor education system, bankrupting the nation, and shoving immoral and unconstitutional laws down our throat, why is it not okay to blame the US government for the problems our country has on the international stage?

        Here is what Ron Paul means when he blames our foreign policy for 9/11.

        Our government funded BIN LADEN, helped Al Qaeda during the Balkans episode, refused to shoot Osama THREE TIMES when he was in our crosshairs, were ten minutes too late bombing Tora Bora (where he was hiding), prevented highly skilled mercenaries from going after him, and took ten years to find the man, when with our CIA, our military, the reward on his head, our foreign aid (bribery) to Pakistan, etc., and God knows what else, we should have been able to do it in six months.

        Not to mention the CIA and the FBI each had a file on Mohammed Atta, and if they had been allowed by Bush and Clinton to access each other’s files, they would have detained him and foiled the attacks.

        With all this, how can you NOT say that our ‘benign’ government is not just as culpable as the hijackers?

        We will have to bring the troops home one way or the other. Would we rather do it on our own terms (by doing it ASAP, but taking precautions), or would we rather do it on the terms of our creditors and our enemies (by waiting for a fiscal collapse caused in part by our Defense spending and the borrowing and inflating required to fund it)?

        This is how empires die, by spreading themselves too thin and treating everything as a threat.

        This is not isolationism. Isolation would require us to withdraw from the world in toto. Ron Paul wants Free Trade (not fake free trade like NAFTA and WTO), diplomacy (not fake diplomacy like the UN and Foreign Aid), and in the case of a real threat, Constitutional Declared Wars.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's amazing that people still can't understand that "not bombing people" is NOT "Isolationist".

  2. Charles James profile image86
    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago

    The USA is the largest military and economic power in the world.

    Isolation and non-intervention is simply not practical for the USA.

    The USA can change its priorities and rein in the military industrial complex. The USA can and does use techniques other than military - using money to influence elections and other political activity in countries like Italy Australia and Chile.

    Even if Ron Paul is elected it will be very hard to resist intervening. What happens if a country turns socialist? Will Ron Paul be relaxed about it or will he intervene?

  3. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    I've always thought that isolationism sounded like a good idea, but it's just not practical in this day and age. We really are a global society. That said, I do think we (the U.S.) intervene in the affairs of other nations far too much.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I mean this with absolutely no malice:

      If you feel that isolationism is a good idea, but you have an "inkling" that it wouldn't work / wouldn't be practical, then the book "Economics in One Lesson" (available for about $10 through Mises.org) explains why in such amazingly crystal clear terms that it's impossible to see the other side of the argument.

      It's also online for free in a .pdf. I highly recommend it.

      1. Charles James profile image86
        Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A very interesting read Evan. Thank you.