Ron Paul's New Non-Interventionist Military Policy Video

[chizzle]

I just saw this ad today, and I really like it. To me it spells out what Ron believes in terms that most people can visualize.

http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

In order to solicit feedback from others, I added a poll to see what other INGO folks think about Ron's foreign policy.

 

[rambone]

Here's a good interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2TZTmMdGos

 

[Chefcook]

I dont understand how people can be so blind not to see the truth of this...

 

[T.Lex]

My disagreement with him on foreign policy is somewhat nuanced, UNLESS he plans on becoming more nuanced if he's elected (which often happens).

The US should be in the business of spreading democracy. If that means covert help to democratic groups in countries that are nominal allies, then so be it. It gets real complicated real quick, but there you go.

He is too isolationist for my tastes. Even though I'm super-interested in foreign policy, that isn't necessarily a deal stopper for me, though, when it comes to voting for him.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The US should be in the business of spreading democracy. If that means covert help to democratic groups in countries that are nominal allies, then so be it. It gets real complicated real quick, but there you go.

That appears to have panned out splendidly in Iran...

Can I ask which parts of our constitution permit using force to change the leadership of other nations?

 

[teddy12b]

The US should be in the business of spreading democracy. If that means covert help to democratic groups in countries that are nominal allies, then so be it. It gets real complicated real quick, but there you go.

Do you think think we should spread democracy through our troops at gun point, or do you think we should spread demacracy by being a beacon of prosperty through peacful business relationships. Nevermind, you already answered that.

 

[T.Lex]

That appears to have panned out splendidly in Iran...

heh heh

I know that's purply, but if you recall, we originally supported a despot who refused to allow democracy to take hold. We got bit by the dog we trained.

Can I ask which parts of our constitution permit using force to change the leadership of other nations?

Here's where Ron Paul and I come together, mostly. For non-covert stuff, which would include the stuff like Iraq and Afghanistan IMHO, you need congressional approval.

For the covert stuff, well... that's where it gets complicated. But, ultimately, it is a matter of foreign policy, which is almost purely an executive branch task. (Ratification of treaties, and funding of the State Department/DOD notwithstanding.)

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

That appears to have panned out splendidly in Iran...

Can I ask which parts of our constitution permit using force to change the leadership of other nations?

The part that says Congress may declare war and that the President is the Commander in Chief authorized to direct the Army and Navy.

Do you think think we should spread democracy through our troops at gun point, or do you think we should spread demacracy by being a beacon of prosperty through peacful business relationships. Nevermind, you already answered that.

The military is a tool of diplomacy. While being a shining beacon is preferable, we need to stand ready to protect American interests with force if necessary.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I know that's purply, but if you recall, we originally supported a despot who refused to allow democracy to take hold. We got bit by the dog we trained

D'oh! Thanks for the correction...I got that all backwards & twisted upside down in my work-addled brain. C'mon weekend...

 

[teddy12b]

The military is a tool of diplomacy. While being a shining beacon is preferable, we need to stand ready to protect American interests with force if necessary.

The military is the only tool left over when diplomacy has failed. I know you're a vet and I so I am. How many guys do you know who should have lived to be old men with grandchildren and instead they died in wars that did nothing for our country other than run up debt. I know a few, and I'd guess you do to. I took the presidents word in good faith that we were doing the right thing for the security of our country in Iraq. We were not, and some of the best men I've ever had the privlidge to have known and served with were later deployed to A-Stan and didn't make it home from a war that lasted longer than WWII. The simple fact is that our military men and women deserve to be treated better and not used up like pawns in the game of international chess. I think you'd agree wtih me that it's a dispicable sight to see our nations finest being depleted by these wars while the leftovers and benchwarmers who stayed home get to live and prosper. When we deplete our own country of our best men in wars we end up as a country when the only men left over are like the french. I want better for the country that I leave to my kids than that.

 

[chizzle]

The military is the only tool left over when diplomacy has failed. I know you're a vet and I so I am. How many guys do you know who should have lived to be old men with grandchildren and instead they died in wars that did nothing for our country other than run up debt. I know a few, and I'd guess you do to. I took the presidents word in good faith that we were doing the right thing for the security of our country in Iraq. We were not, and some of the best men I've ever had the privlidge to have known and served with were later deployed to A-Stan and didn't make it home from a war that lasted longer than WWII. The simple fact is that our military men and women deserve to be treated better and not used up like pawns in the game of international chess. I think you'd agree wtih me that it's a dispicable sight to see our nations finest being depleted by these wars while the leftovers and benchwarmers who stayed home get to live and prosper. When we deplete our own country of our best men in wars we end up as a country when the only men left over are like the french. I want better for the country that I leave to my kids than that.

I appreciate your insight, and that you took the time to post your thoughts. That was said in the way only a veteran could say it.

 

[bigg cheese]

he US should be in the business of spreading democracy.

Why spread what we ourselves don't have?

He is too isolationist for my tastes. Even though I'm super-interested in foreign policy, that isn't necessarily a deal stopper for me, though, when it comes to voting for him.

I'm all for the Glenn Beck method. Bring our troops home from everywhere and establish a real border with people guarding it. Finally, issue an ultimatum. "**** us off -- we kill you."

Perhaps too simplistic, but I like simple

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The military is the only tool left over when diplomacy has failed. I know you're a vet and I so I am. How many guys do you know who should have lived to be old men with grandchildren and instead they died in wars that did nothing for our country other than run up debt. I know a few, and I'd guess you do to. I took the presidents word in good faith that we were doing the right thing for the security of our country in Iraq. We were not, and some of the best men I've ever had the privlidge to have known and served with were later deployed to A-Stan and didn't make it home from a war that lasted longer than WWII. The simple fact is that our military men and women deserve to be treated better and not used up like pawns in the game of international chess. I think you'd agree wtih me that it's a dispicable sight to see our nations finest being depleted by these wars while the leftovers and benchwarmers who stayed home get to live and prosper. When we deplete our own country of our best men in wars we end up as a country when the only men left over are like the french. I want better for the country that I leave to my kids than that.

We will have to disagree about the military's use within the diplomacy domain. I don't think it's the last tool - just a necessary one. While I don't think we lead with military options, sometimes we must. Afganistan was one of those times. There could be nothing but retribution and punishment.

It's easy to sit back now and second guess the value of going into Iraq. It's unfair to suggest that we went there in 1991 to steal oil (still waiting to see what the government collected in royalty fees) - there is simply no evidence other than the chants of barking moon bats that this was ever a consideration. Was oil a primary driver? Hell yes. Allowing the destabilization of the world's oil supply would have been contrary to America's national security interests. 2003 was a continuation of the original policy. Again, in hindsight the justification was not exactly correct. I attribute it to more to Saddam's hiding (shipping off to Syria) of WMDs than to W lying about WMDs as a predicate to war.

I too have friends who didn't come home. It saddens me at many levels. What saddens me most is, as you said, good men leave the better part of themselves on the field while the leftovers and the benchwarmers not only never suit up for the game, but they cheer for the other team to win.

 

[chizzle]

Thanks to everyone for voting!

I just saw that Ron won the Straw Poll at the Value Voters Summit in DC:

http://youtu.be/7qKQ1xXobJc

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Thanks to everyone for voting!

I just saw that Ron won the Straw Poll at the Value Voters Summit in DC:

http://youtu.be/7qKQ1xXobJc

I didnt even know there was a poll, but im glad he's still winning em. Looks like Cain came in second, the more i think about it the more im digging a Paul/Cain ticket

 

[88GT]

The military is the only tool left over when diplomacy has failed. I know you're a vet and I so I am. How many guys do you know who should have lived to be old men with grandchildren and instead they died in wars that did nothing for our country other than run up debt. I know a few, and I'd guess you do to. I took the presidents word in good faith that we were doing the right thing for the security of our country in Iraq. We were not, and some of the best men I've ever had the privlidge to have known and served with were later deployed to A-Stan and didn't make it home from a war that lasted longer than WWII. The simple fact is that our military men and women deserve to be treated better and not used up like pawns in the game of international chess. I think you'd agree wtih me that it's a dispicable sight to see our nations finest being depleted by these wars while the leftovers and benchwarmers who stayed home get to live and prosper. When we deplete our own country of our best men in wars we end up as a country when the only men left over are like the french. I want better for the country that I leave to my kids than that.

Use of the military IS diplomacy. And if you doubt that, just try and see how successful you'll be negotiating anything without one.

 

[chizzle]

I found this quote and thought it was appropriate:

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." Robert E. Lee

While I understand the need for a strong military (read: not on the offense), what prevents us from having the same non-interventionist military policy that has served Switzerland for years, even through WWII with Germany next door.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I found this quote and thought it was appropriate:

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." Robert E. Lee

While I understand the need for a strong military (read: not on the offense), what prevents us from having the same non-interventionist military policy that has served Switzerland for years, even through WWII with Germany next door.

We are not Switzerland. Switzerland is in the middle of the Alps. Easier to bypass than invade. Defensable from all approaches. National sport is shooting stuff. No natural resources to speak of. Strategic value - little to none. Tactical value - none.

US is 1/3 of a continent. World leader. Finance capital. Innovation capital. Lots of natural resources, including rare earths, oil, precious metals, radioactive material. Vulnerable from all approaches. Melting pot, so foreign fighters can infiltrate and blend in.

 

[KLB]

The more I hear of his stance on foreign policy, the more I like of what he says.

 

[chizzle]

We are not Switzerland. Switzerland is in the middle of the Alps. Easier to bypass than invade. Defensable from all approaches. National sport is shooting stuff. No natural resources to speak of. Strategic value - little to none. Tactical value - none.

US is 1/3 of a continent. World leader. Finance capital. Innovation capital. Lots of natural resources, including rare earths, oil, precious metals, radioactive material. Vulnerable from all approaches. Melting pot, so foreign fighters can infiltrate and blend in.

Wouldn't the US' wealth of innovation and raw materials also give us a disproportionate advantage in defending ourselves?