Foreign policy. (Ron Paul, Putin, Iran, Iraq)

[paperhouse]

The more I think about it, I don't think anyone has the answer. What we're doing isn't working. The one lone opposing opinion is to leave immediately which doesn't look like the best of ideas either.

It's either all or nothing I guess.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

The more I think about it, I don't think anyone has the answer. What we're doing isn't working. The one lone opposing opinion is to leave immediately which doesn't look like the best of ideas either.

It's either all or nothing I guess.

How do we know what the best answer is since we have been pursing the same method for the past half century?

In the case of Ron Paul or non-interventionist foreign policy, with particular emphasis on military intervention, he may very well be completely wrong. However I don't believe anyone can say with any certainty because no one has been willing to take that course of action. Everyone has a "theory" that non-interventionist foreign policy won't work for the United States, but I can say with some certainty that our interventionist foreign policy is for chit and has given rise to anti-American views from large swaths of the globe.

We are unwilling to look at various other high level sophisticated nations who have non-interventionist foreign policies and say, why couldn't that work for us. America now has a vision of itself as the global leader, the global protector, the main stud on the block and we will kick anyones arse to prove our superior nature.

Like the Soviets, the Spanish empire of the 16th century, like Rome, we too will one day spend ourselves broke trying to oversee the world. Not a matter of if but when. No nation, empire, or people are exempt from the power of greed, even if born out of righteous intent.

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

How do we know what the best answer is since we have been pursing the same method for the past half century?

In the case of Ron Paul or non-interventionist foreign policy, with particular emphasis on military intervention, he may very well be completely wrong. However I don't believe anyone can say with any certainty because no one has been willing to take that course of action. Everyone has a "theory" that non-interventionist foreign policy won't work for the United States, but I can say with some certainty that our interventionist foreign policy is for chit and has given rise to anti-American views from large swaths of the globe.

We are unwilling to look at various other high level sophisticated nations who have non-interventionist foreign policies and say, why couldn't that work for us. America now has a vision of itself as the global leader, the global protector, the main stud on the block and we will kick anyones arse to prove our superior nature.

Like the Soviets, the Spanish empire of the 16th century, like Rome, we too will one day spend ourselves broke trying to oversee the world. Not a matter of if but when. No nation, empire, or people are exempt from the power of greed, even if born out of righteous intent.

You're exactly right. And I'm mad as hell that we can't find decent candidates that can actually talk about and understand what Paul said when he talks about going back to the gold standard. It may not be the best, so why not have both? None of the other candidates seem to be informed enough to even rebut his claims. I want someone to do that. Anyone.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

The more I think about it, I don't think anyone has the answer. What we're doing isn't working. The one lone opposing opinion is to leave immediately which doesn't look like the best of ideas either.

It's either all or nothing I guess.

In a few months we will have reached five years since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. It's long overdue for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. Seeing their willingness to give themselves long vacations while Americans are in harm's way 24/7 I believe it's also long overdue for the Iraqis to be given a date on which the responsibility becomes theirs, ready or not. If you keep carrying your children they'll never learn to walk.

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by burdell

In a few months we will have reached five years after the end of major combat operations in Iraq. It's long overdue for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. Seeing their willingness to give themselves long vacations while Americans are in harm's way 24/7 I believe it's also long overdue for the Iraqis to be given a date on which the responsibility becomes theirs, ready or not. If you keep carrying your children they'll never learn to walk.

I woke up this morning to see three headlines on google.com news.

Bush: Iran threatens world security

Bush reassured Israel on security - Olmert

Text of President Bush's speech in the United Arab Emirates


I no longer feel safe in my own country. Doesn't help that I have to find my birth certificate to get my license renewed in February. The notice came last week. The decision was announced Friday and a bill to introduce mandatory service by the department of Homeland security for 18-42 year olds was entered into the House record. No, I don't feel good these days. I worry something I say online now might get me into some sort of trouble.

All this because we can't mind our own business.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

I woke up this morning to see three headlines on google.com news.

Bush: Iran threatens world security

Bush reassured Israel on security - Olmert

Text of President Bush's speech in the United Arab Emirates

.

I think it's time one of Dubya's staff pulls him aside and explains to him that there's no Nobel Prize awarded for saber rattling, maybe then he'd stop the posturing and face some of the other problems America faces.

[TnHilltopper]

During President Bush's visit to the Middle East he has also stated that:

Israel's Netanyahu Claims President Bush Promised Unilateral Nuclear Bomb Attack Against Iran

Thu, 01/10/2008 - 16:08 - Wire Services - US President George W. Bush promised Israel's opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu that the United States will join the Jewish state in a nuclear strike against Iran, Israel Radio reported today.

What is also chilling is that Bush doesn't believe our own National Intelligence Estimate in regards to Iran.

“He told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views”

Apparently the Israeli's are furious over the NIE report and Olmert referred to Americans as, "naive" in regards to the threat posed by Iran.

So it would seem that Bush is passing off the Intelligence Estimate from 16 different intelligence departments of his own government, the one that spends more money than all the rest of the world every two years, to side with the Prime Minister of a tiny foreign nation who is basically calling him stupid. Oh, I feel so much better now.

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by burdell

I think it's time one of Dubya's staff pulls him aside and explains to him that there's no Nobel Prize awarded for saber rattling, maybe then he'd stop the posturing and face some of the other problems America faces.

There's something else going on there. With no proof of the existence....wait. AH!

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

During President Bush's visit to the Middle East he has also stated that:

Israel's Netanyahu Claims President Bush Promised Unilateral Nuclear Bomb Attack Against Iran


What is also chilling is that Bush doesn't believe our own National Intelligence Estimate in regards to Iran.

“He told the Israelis that he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views”

Apparently the Israeli's are furious over the NIE report and Olmert referred to Americans as, "naive" in regards to the threat posed by Iran.

So it would seem that Bush is passing off the Intelligence Estimate from 16 different intelligence departments of his own government, the one that spends more money than all the rest of the world every two years, to side with the Prime Minister of a tiny foreign nation who is basically calling him stupid. Oh, I feel so much better now.

He should be impeached now. Before he returns. Leave him in Israel if he cares so much.

[Xpat]

Barack Obama and Ron Paul both seem to have the most sane foreign policy platforms. For starters, they both seem to believe in the "don't launch unprovoked invasions of other countries" idea that others seem to have forgotten.
Also, I have a hard time seeing either one being hoodwinked by Putin the way Dubya (Mr. I see into Putin's soul) has.

They also both want to promote fair trade (not worshipping at the altar of globalization) and stop giving tax breaks to US companies exporting our jobs elswehere (an issue where economics and foreign policy go hand in hand). In all fairness, Edwards also supports this idea.

The other candidates sent us headlong into Iraq (yes Hillary, you too) and don't mind bankrupting the nation for their big adventure (while underfunding the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan).