re: Ron Paul - Sanctions an Act of War

quote:

---

it can be equally effective?

---

Link?

quote:

---

why is it unfair to call him an isolationist?

---

quote:

---

his support for free trade

---

quote:

---

Link?

---

Don't have one, but I'm sure sanctions have had significant impacts in the past. Would there be a big difference for you between risking your life in battle vs. living a depression era lifestyle? It may not make a difference with countries that are a shite hole, but I promise you that China is behaving themselves in large part because they're reliant on us for their economy. Russia isn't as much, but if the US said "Not only are we no longer trading with Russia, but we're not trading with countries that trade with Russia (ie much of Europe) until they stop the tomfoolery," they would get their shite together quick.

quote:

---

Beyond his understandable opposition to war, he is I believe against our involvement in NATO and The United Nations, as well as any foreign aid. Is that accurate, and if so why is it unfair to call him an isolationist? What differentiates his views from those of an isolationist beyond his support for free trade?

---

Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionist not an isolationist. The two terms are not synonyms. Isolationists believe their country should have no relations with other countries at all. Meaning no ambassadors or trade agreements with foreign countries. A non-interventionist is only opposed to their country entering wars and conflicts with other nations with the exception of self defense.

quote:

---

But a Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an act of war?


Libertarianism has been exposed during this crisis.

---

quote:

---

The "isolationist" portion of this movement doesnt make much sense in todays world. Looks good on paper but people arent going to stop fricking with us just because we withdraw from world affairs.

---

God, you people are so fricking ignorant.

quote:

---

Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionist not an isolationist

---

Got it.

quote:

---

opposed to their country entering wars and conflicts with other nations

---

Well, right or wrong, thats a big part of who we are, also a huge portion of our economy.

Here is an expanded definition:

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]


Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. Non-interventionism is a policy in government only and thus does not exclude non-governmental intervention by organizations such as Amnesty International.

quote:

---

I would consider military and trade isolationism as separate. No one would argue he's against free trade. I don't think you can point to that and say he's not an isolationists in the military sense. That's just me.

---

Now you are just making up your own definitions for the hell of it when there are already clearly defined definitions.

Isolationism - Shutting your country off militarily, diplomatically, and economically from the rest of the world.

Non-interventionism - Not getting involved in the wars between other countries, yet remaining open economically and diplomatically.


You just want to say "isolation" when there is already a perfect definition called "non-intervention"

quote:

---

You just want to say "isolation" when there is already a perfect definition called "non-intervention"

---

One could say exactly the opposite. That those, with the exception of economic policies, support isolationism, would prefer to call themselves something else. Non interventionism certainly sounds better.

quote:

---

"non-intervention"

---

I understand the distinction.

Now, tell me how:

1. We bring the boys home for good it is going to create a power vacuum, I'm not comfortable with China or Russia taking that role;

2. Defense spending is a huge part of our economy, what repalces that?