- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ron Paul - Sanctions an Act of War
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:29 pm to Gmorgan4982
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:29 pm to Gmorgan4982
I'm just glad to hear that Mr. Magoo is still alive and kickin'.
0
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:31 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
We are a global superpower who will be brought into war one way or another.
Sure, but not by people that you think of as enemies right now ie the Russians or those dirty al qaueda people.
No, we're brought into war by an out of control military industrial complex and politicians who see nothing but dollar signs. We haven't been truly in danger since WW2 and have been fighting useless proxy wars that's about money and power.
shite man, 9/11 happened because we're constantly meddling in the Mideast and won't withdraw from their land. I'm tired of losing American lives to that shithole.
quote:
Downsizing and reducing our overseas bases is just putting us in a poor strategic position, not encouraging a worldwide kumbaya.
It's giving up a role that has harmed us drastically since we took it up and have no business continuing. Being the world's policeman.
Having a large standing military is an outdated model of defense and it's not needed at all. We need to slash DOD spending by 42-45% and close bases that we have no business of having. The above also includes downsizing the army to a small and efficient level, maintaining a robust, lethal and moderately sized marine corps and air force and maintains and building a very large and powerful navy with a few more carrier battlegroups.
This post was edited on 3/15/14 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:32 pm to Zed
quote:
You agree isolationism is both economic and military policy, but are unwilling to acknowledge either independent of the other? Is that correct?
They aren't. Would you call someone who's fiscally conservative but "socially liberal" a liberal?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:34 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:How so? Part of isolationist policy is to withdraw from military treaties and not enter them in the first place.
I would say that's a huge bastardization of the term.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:35 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
But a Russian invasion of Ukraine is not an act of war?
Well, the Russians haven't fired a shot yet. Can you have a war without any bloodshed?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:37 pm to Zed
quote:
How so? Part of isolationist policy is to withdraw from military treaties and not enter them in the first place.
Possessing one "isolationist" tendency doesn't make one an isolationist. If so, everyone could be called an isolationist.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:It would be fair to say they were socially liberal. It would certainly be fair to say they held some characteristically liberal positions.
Would you call someone who's fiscally conservative but "socially liberal" a liberal?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:40 pm to Zed
quote:
It would be fair to say they were socially liberal. It would certainly be fair to say they held some characteristically liberal positions.
Libertarians share some social views with liberals, but not all. Affirmative action for example.
Sharing a few viewpoints doesn't make one Liberal, Isolationist, Conservative.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:45 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Of course not. Militarily how does he differ from traditional isolationists? I'm unaware of any major differences.
Sharing a few viewpoints doesn't make one Liberal, Isolationist, Conservative.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:52 pm to Zed
Here's something that may help you.
Paul on the issue.
LINK
Paul on the issue.
LINK
quote:
The word isolationist is usually used as a smear tactic. If you’re going to criticize constitutional foreign policy, at least get your terms right.
quote:
An isolationist is someone who wants their country to be isolated. They want nothing to do with any other country. They tend to oppose immigration, trade, talks with other nations and they tend to be anti-war for the most part.
quote:
Now for the term non-interventionism. This basically means minding our own business overseas. We shouldn’t be involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Government policies always have unintended consequences and foreign policy is no exception. (Some who support a non-interventionist foreign policy would justify war only in cases of self defense). Right now we are bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Six countries. And I don’t wait for the federal government to tell me when something is a war or not. So right now we are in six wars. We have 900 military bases around the world.
It is not being an isolationist to ask, why are we in six foreign sovereign nations meddling in their internal affairs? Is this really the best use of taxpayer dollars?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:00 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:I'll agree none of this necessarily makes one an isolationist, but if he's saying Ukraine is none of or business, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or wherever, and an invasion of a sovereign country is justified as self determination, and sanctions are off the table, and we're meddling by doing anything at all about it, at what point can you call him an isolationist, militarily speaking? Is it ever fair?
Right now we are bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. Six countries. And I don’t wait for the federal government to tell me when something is a war or not. So right now we are in six wars. We have 900 military bases around the world.
It is not being an isolationist to ask, why are we in six foreign sovereign nations meddling in their internal affairs? Is this really the best use of taxpayer dollars?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:03 pm to Zed
quote:
I'll agree none of this necessarily makes one an isolationist, but if he's saying Ukraine is none of or business, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or wherever, and an invasion of a sovereign country is justified as self determination, and sanctions are off the table, and we're meddling by doing anything at all about it, at what point can you call him an isolationist, militarily speaking? Is it ever fair?
He doesn't want to intervene in the affairs of others, I'd say he's non interventionist.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:I guess. Just seems like one way of putting it to me.
He doesn't want to intervene in the affairs of others, I'd say he's non interventionist.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:18 pm to Zed
Isolationist is being all in, 100% or you're not an isolationist. You can share some common ideas and not be isolationist. Mainstream Republicans started using this as a slur against Paul.
This post was edited on 3/15/14 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:25 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Yeah I know, and it worked when they were beating the war drums. The guy doesn't want to do anything though. I think I like Rand better on this.
Republicans started using this as a slur against Paul.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:37 pm to Zed
quote:
The guy doesn't want to do anything though. I think I like Rand better on this.
Who, Ron? His opinion is our intervention costs far too much money and fricks things up more than it helps. I can't disagree.
I don't have a problem with economic sanctions in lieu of military action, when the issues directly involve the USA. I don't want us involved with Russia/Ukraine.
This post was edited on 3/15/14 at 11:40 pm
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:42 pm to Zed
I prefer Ron ideologically, but I understand Rand politically. Ron led with his chin too much to be viable as a Presidential candidate. Rand's interview with Rachel Maddow in 2010 was done early in his political career before he learned the art of obfuscation, parsing and deflection, but since then he's gotten a lot better.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:45 pm to RogerTheShrubber
A strict, non-interventionist foreign policy is both dangerous and immoral. Obviously we shouldn't be running around starting wars for the hell of it, but there are certain times when preemptive action is most definitely necessary.
Take the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. In a 100-day period, almost 1,000,000 Rwandans were slaughtered by the Hutus. Such actions should not be allowed to continue for an extended period of time. World War II is another great example of how non-interventionism can backfire. Had the U.S. played a bigger role in world affairs in the years after World War I, perhaps the Second World War would not have been as costly or as long as it was.
Take the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. In a 100-day period, almost 1,000,000 Rwandans were slaughtered by the Hutus. Such actions should not be allowed to continue for an extended period of time. World War II is another great example of how non-interventionism can backfire. Had the U.S. played a bigger role in world affairs in the years after World War I, perhaps the Second World War would not have been as costly or as long as it was.
This post was edited on 3/15/14 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:45 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
immoral
I don't understand why you would think this.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 11:47 pm to Zed
quote:
The guy doesn't want to do anything though. I think I like Rand better on this.
If this were true, and Ron was really the pacifist/isolationist that you say he is, he would have never joined the military as a young man. I can respect him a lot more than I respect Dick "Five Deferment" Cheney, who loves wars as long as he doesn't have to do any of the fighting.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News