- HubPages»
- Politics and Social Issues»
- United States Politics
You Like Ron Paul - Just Not On Foreign Policy
Current U.S. Foreign Policy
Since World War 2, America has not gone to war with a congressional declaration. Going to Congress for a declaration of war is how our forefathers intended war to be handled in this country.
The results of this practice are disastrous wars like the Vietnam War, and decade-long wars against tactics (the Iraq War or "War on Terror"). Since concrete goals for these wars aren't set, they last forever, and the American people have no say in the matter.
To make things worse, we opt to shoot first. We've adopted a foreign policy of aggressive, preemptive wars - rather than using our great power as a platform for great diplomacy.
These policies effectively eliminate America's claim to be a righteous world power. Since World War 2, about 90% of the casualties of war have been civilian lives. In the Iraq War alone, over 135,000 civilians have died.
Any astute individual can understand how - just on civilian deaths alone - these practices are a serious threat to our national security.
The U.S. government spends billions of dollars propping up dictators in other countries, many of which have democratic election processes.
America currently operates on the idea that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. We spend ridiculous amounts of money buying allegiances around the world.
To add to the economic strain, we spend money bombing and rebuilding some countries in which allegiance cannot be bought. Then we portray those countries as the aggressors.
The Economics of War
Some people are under the impression that war is good for the economy. The main argument being that war creates jobs.
That assumption could not be further from the truth. In every war, the economies of the countries involved are weakened. Although employment rates can go up during wartime, taxes almost always go up. Who do you think is going to pay all of those extra salaries?
A wartime country's currency is always strained, causing inflation. There are many reasons for this, but what this means to you is that prices will continue to rise on rent, groceries, gas, etc....
Only the powerful special interests, corporations in bed with government, and banks that finance these wars (sometimes both sides) stand to profit from them.
Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
Ron Paul believes in a constitutional, non-interventionist foreign policy. He believes in free trade and friendship with other countries, and opposes the entangling alliances that threaten our national security today.
Ron Paul believes that war should be a last resort, and that America should use its great power to set an example of diplomacy for the rest of the world. He is against bringing "democracy" to the rest of the world at gun point.
He strongly believes that the only justified wars are those in defense of our country, and that wars of aggression tarnish the name of our great country.
"Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new preemptive first strike doctrine." -- Congressman Ron Paul, 2002
Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who knows that - even if we really believed that these preemptive wars were righteous - we cannot afford them anymore.
He knows that all great military powers throughout history have failed due to economic problems. It happened to Rome and the Soviet Union. They failed because their militaries were over extended, and their economies could not withstand the strain.
Will we go the way of Rome, or start electing men with the ideals of our founding fathers? In my honest opinion, electing Ron Paul would be a big step in the right direction.
Is Ron Paul right on foreign policy?
Related
Henry Kissinger - Architect of the New World Order
Is Ron Paul the definition of consistency and common sense political ideology?
Did Hitler have clear foreign policy aims, yet no plan on how to achieve them?
Ron Paul Won Early Primaries, Mathematicians Find. Election Judge Threatened for Calling Fraud
Popular
You Like Ron Paul - Just Not On Foreign Policy
He's now surpassed $3M.It's time to ralley push this thing forward: If you've already contributed to Ron Paul today - contribute another $17.76! If you haven't contributed yet, what are you waiting for?
He's now surpassed $3M.It's time to ralley push this thing forward: If you've already contributed to Ron Paul today - contribute another $17.76! If you haven't contributed yet, what are you waiting for?
- Author
@mizzshady - I agree. We cannot continue our current foreign policy without serious retaliation.
I also agree that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama. Even if he does beat Obama, he will only perpetuate the foreign and economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
For many Ron Paul supporters, there is no B or C candidate. The republican party has a smaller base than it thinks it does, in that respect.
The braindead GOP should understand that Romney and Gingrich cannot bring together republican, independent, and disillusioned democratic voters like Ron Paul can.
Let me explain something 2 u plain & simple. The foreign policy we have right now is the same exact 1 Romney wants 2 adopt it's leading us 2 ww3. The military in Iran & the USA R positioning themselves 4 war. Russia & China have not but they R raising their warnings inside their countries 2 prepare 2 prepare 4 war.
They say Ron Paul's foreign policy of peace & open trade is dangerous!!! I like them 2 explain 2 me what could possible B more dangerous then a nuclear world war... Can someone please explain this 2 me? Russia & China R the 2nd & 3rd largest armies in the world with us being 1st.. Russia & China R the big brothers of Iran & we R pushing them & pushing them with our stupid sanction. Placing sanction on another country is an act of war & we did it 2 Iran so therefor we really just started ww3. God help our youth the soldiers of America.
A vote 4 Romney is a vote 4 Obama cuz Ron Paul is the only GOP that will beat Obama.
I like the fact that Ron Paul is one of the few conservatives that actually discusses civil liberties.
Great hub - voted up
John
@Chris - Nice article, good points about pre-emptive wars and billions in reconstruction costs
I really like Ron Paul, more for his honesty and integrity, than his positions, although I like most of those too. It's just nice to hear a "politician" say what he means - and stick to it for years, rather than say what his audience wants to hear - and change the message state by state.
Yes, I think a Ron Paul is just what America needs. As president he can lead, and the legislature can moderate some of the more extreme positions. Wasn't that how it was set-up to be?
GA
- Author
@American Romance - Thanks for your comment. I do believe you are focusing on the effects of our failed foreign policy rather than the problems themselves.
Ron Paul is too weak for me! We have many enemies who claim they want us dead! If your next door neighbor told you he would blow up your house and kill you and your family some day would you just smile and go have a cup of coffee?.........I think not!
Chris
I agree.
It was Congress that gave away the diplomatic farm after the wars. Of course the Presidents were no better than Congress.
Bureaucracy is anti intelligence
Thanks
- Author
After 9/11, there was no real change in foreign policy. This has just been a continuation of what we were already doing around the world.
All 9/11 proved is that blowback is real, and that the foreign policy of the last 60+ years has failed us miserably. Why blame Congress for this, and not the Presidents?
Besides, if you do your research, you will find that we had all the information we needed to stop the attacks in advance.
Intelligence was ignored. Our solution was to create more beaurocracy, and increase the efforts that created the problems in the first place.
Our foreign policy failed us at the end of WWII, and we have never really won a war without Congress releasing Defeat from the jaws of military victory.
Terrorists are not associated with countries, so you can't declare war on them, yet they want the protection of the Geneva Convention. Despite the fact that they themselves don't abide by it.
911 proved that our National Defense failed, and it failed because of Congress and the bad decisions that they have made since WWII..
- Author
@Druid Dude - I'm truly sorry about your sister. With respect, Paul's position on this is that it is not a federal issue.
I personally think that anyone driving and texting is an idiot, but we already have manslaughter laws to deter those people.
Interesting Hub. I'm in the process of crafting one about Ron Paul, myself. You have made a very astute contrast between Paul's isolationist foreign policy and his domestic agenda. I think it speaks volumes to where to the GOP, as a philosophical entity, is today.
Thanks for a great read!
Don't care for his stance against the NTSB on the national cell phone while driving rulings. My sister was a pedestrian killed by a jerk on a cell-phone. He was texting. Have you heard the one about the Semi truck driver veiwing porn on his laptop while driving. True. Paul blows it.
- Author
Since when did stabalizing the region become a goal that the American people wanted? We just wanted retribution for the attacks.
Good luck to anyone who thinks that stabalizing anything in the Middle East is realistic, especially since we're over there killing civilians.
Paul's foreign policy was the cornerstone of Republican foreign policy, all the way up through President Nixon. Then things changed. Here's General Butler's take on the whole thing: http://www.warisaracket.org/
Enjoy!
The congressional approval granting the president the authorization to use force (that Ron Paul was for before he was against)is basically the same as a declaration of war. If we did declare war on Iraq do you think that we would be out of there without stabilizing the region? Plus, the declaration of war grants the president special powers. Look at my hub on constitutional rights. BTW where does Paul stand on the draft? Is he for it?
17