Ack wrote:
In many ways, Paul's campaign felt a lot like Obama's, especially in the general age of many of his earliest followers. Both had pretty heavy support amongst the youth. Both campaigns used similar tactics regarding Internet polling. I also feel both campaigns made some unrealistic promises, but I'm not a supporter of either(and I know there are people who supported both). But hey, my favorite candidate got knocked out relatively early, so what's a guy to do?
please refrain from comparing Dr. Paul to super socialist obama it made my stomach turn
Is that any clearer?
I did not say in any way how much better my candidate is then anyone elses, nor did anyone else's opinion "make my stomach turn". For all intensive purposes, none of you even know who my candidate is.
Ack wrote:
In many ways, Paul's campaign felt a lot like Obama's, especially in the general age of many of his earliest followers. Both had pretty heavy support amongst the youth. Both campaigns used similar tactics regarding Internet polling. I also feel both campaigns made some unrealistic promises, but I'm not a supporter of either(and I know there are people who supported both). But hey, my favorite candidate got knocked out relatively early, so what's a guy to do?
please refrain from comparing Dr. Paul to super socialist obama it made my stomach turn
Is that any clearer?
i would of said the same about mccain, and you wrote that after i wrote about pauls foreign policy, not after that comment. he clarified that he was talking about how their campaign was run and not actual policy.
and it is really not a slight against mccain or obama, they have socialist views period. we basically live in a socialist country. Ron Paul is almost the exact opposite, along with a couple other oddball politicians.
to me it doesn't matter who wins the debates, because whichever one wins the election, the people still lose. and you pointed out the clear bias in the debates yourself.
but hey i'm not trying to start shit , so if it will make you feel better i will apologize to ack.
Ack i am sorry that i replied the way that i did to your comment, the experience of seeing Obama and Paul (my political hero) being compared made me experience cognitive dissonance, and In reaction I said that i was revulsed by your statement, when in actuality my stomach did not in fact turn. i apologize for the hyperbole. if you do not wish to "indulge me" I understand, but i am geniunly interested on your disagreement with Pauls foreign policy, as you typically give thoughtful responses, unlike mine.
No, it's ok, I'm not offended. I may have misread his tone as a bit more militant than he probably meant, but I agree that he is right about seeking clarification on why I think the way I do. I'd encourage him to sit down with his father and talk to him about those views, too, and I will willingly admit that family background does deeply effect my opinions. Coming from a family with a long military history, I have a very aggressive opinion on American foreign policy and the use of the military.
As for withdrawal of our forces, those bases provide excellent striking opportunities if something was to go down in Russia, the Balkans, Turkey, China, Taiwan, Korea. Plus, they help stimulate the local economy, improve our ties(we do lots of joint training exercises with Japan's Self Defense Force for instance, and we get access to their ports for equipment, repairs, rearmament, etc.), give our soldiers experience in other nations and cultures, and serve as opportunities to help stabilize the region. It also helps to protect our allies in those regions that might not be capable of protecting themselves if something were to go wrong, such as North Korea one day deciding to launch a nuclear strike on Japan.
In fact, when it comes to imperialism, the last time we've gained territory from a war that wasn't turned into a state and made a part of our country was 1899, when we divided Samoa with Germany. Before that it was the Spanish American War in 1898, where we were given Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. We bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. And we regularly offer these territories opportunity to become either states or to go off on their own, but as being a territory of the United States has benefits, they just decide to stay territories. Think about it this way, they have all the access to U.S. markets but pay little to no taxes. Many of these territories enjoy U.S. citizenship, though they don't vote. But they do get their own primaries and their citizens can legally enter the United States without requirement of passport or green cards.
As for the United Nations, I think they're pretty useless, but if we withdraw, what then? China and Russia become the two major players on the U.N. security council? Look how well China's handling Darfur while blocking other nations' attempts to do anything in the region. Withdraw from NATO? We're the sole powerhouse there, NATO would probably quickly collapse after we leave. And then what happens to Europe?
Now yes, originally this setup was put in place to combat an ideological war against socialism, and the major threat of the Soviet Union is gone. But now we have a multitude of smaller threats all over the world that are building up, beginning to ally with each other to combat our interests. Russia meeting with Iran to give them uranium? North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and Syria all meeting in various places to begin forging trade treaties, beginning to build future alliances? Iran and Syria providing training and equipment to Hezbollah in Lebanon while also backing anti-U.S. forces in Iraq? Islamic extremism building both in a farther and farther left-wing Europe while also leading attacks via the Janjaweed in a China-backed Sudan? And we're supposed to withdraw our forces from around the world and withdraw our voice and military might from the only major world organizations where we could potentially try to do some good and offset our enemies' voices? Not to mention the economic impact of isolationism, especially in the age of business globalization. This is why I don't think Ron Paul was realistic about foreign policy.
However, we do need to get our shit straight in America, I agree with you and Ron Paul there. I think we should be worried about an increasingly left-wing academia(no offense to dsheinem, but when the entire education process is run by people of one particular bent, it frightens me because it means students aren't hearing opposing ideas and making educated personal decisions concerning politics), media, and populous, our growing economic crisis, and our rampant partisanship. But we can't lose sight of the Hellhole that the rest of the world is wandering into. Otherwise what will be left of the world when we come out of isolation? Or worse, how long until that Hellhole of a world decides to force us out of isolationism through military force?
I have great respect for Ron Paul, and I'm glad he's asserting the ideas he is. I think much of the government should be demolished because it is far too large, I think many of the personal freedoms he pulls for are worth fighting for, and I appreciate the service he has already done for our nation. But, as I said, his foreign policy ideas bother me. Again, as I said before, I supported Fred Thompson.
Thank you for the well thought out response, and belive me my dad and I discuss politics all the time, but his response to foreign policy is usually something along the lines of "nuke them and make a f'n parking lot, then see if they fxck with us" or "we gotta be more intimidating than they are, they will respect us from fear" like you are going to intimidate somone who will willingly blow themselves up. He is far too emotional, and will not argue logically, Plus he is a hardcore republican so even if a democrat had a good idea they would be "tax raising bastards that want to take my guns." Dont get me wrong he is a very intelligent person. He is the Electrical Superintendent at the local power company, and designs substations and shit, he just lets his emotions get in the way of political discourse.
you said a lot, so i apologize in advance if my reply is a bit disjointed.
I don't think we should train other forces or share/trade military intelligence/technology
this is where I am an isolationist. I agree with your assessment about being an isolationist on trade. I am all about the free market, and i think we should trade with all nations, not just the ones our political leaders are buddies with. I will give you that having bases all over the world has its advantages, such as like you mentioned strategic striking opps., but it also has disadvantages like thinning out the troops. I dont think you need entire military bases to gather intelligence or to show a presence. and what is the point of having a presence other than intimidation. I think if the need arose we could mobilize from the U.S. just fine.
I think this is what Ron Paul is reffering to when he discusses Imperialism, not the actual taking of the land, but having a presence, and trying to force our culture and political ideologies on other countries. also, we may not have taken land by force since 1899, but we have deposed leaders, and installed new (and sometimes worse) leaders.
I don't think Paul is an "Isolationist" he wants to be neutral. there is a difference. he wants to stay out of it and let them sort it out theirselves, it's not our business. on top of it not being our business, our government doesn't have a clue on how to handle foreign affairs. we support some countries based only on religious reasons, some because they are democracies, and some because it benefits the government momentarily. We don't have a set policy. they make it up as they go and it is horrendous. ally one day enemy the next (main reason i don't support military alliances, and training/trading info). and alliances get in our way. Georgia attacked russia, and we were giving russia shit for defending theirself. like we wouldnt have done the same thing. it is BS.
you did make a lot of good points, and you didn't make your decision based on a lack of knowledge. i respect that. most of the people i talked to about it are not very informed and just buy into the right wing propaganda that your not a patriot if you don't support the war in iraq. so i respect that you can back up your opinion without using media cliches like "cut tail and run" or whatever their new slogan is. as i said before you usually have well thought out posts and i was genuinly interested in what you had to say.
It's not a problem, I do my best to be knowledgeable of my country, and though I can't say I'm as efficient, I try to learn a little bit about other nations as well. For instance, in the case of the brief Russian military action in Georgia, I have a greatly different view of what happened. Two of Georgia's eastern-most provinces which were very pro-Russia were quite upset about the nation's involvement with the EU and flirting with joining NATO, so they apparently decided to openly revolt and form their own nation. When Georgia responded with military action, those two provinces requested Russian aid, hence Russia's invasion. Russia's claims of genocide in the region were falsified and put out by their media(even in some cases admitting that what they were saying was just propaganda), while Russian and pro-Russian troops did their best to cut "western media" by either capturing and forcing them to leave, or in some cases firing upon them. There is some leaked footage, such as videos of Russian troops opening fire on vehicles full of Turkish journalists, or even one video where a Georgian reporter is grazed in the arm while giving a report, carried back to her van, forced to wear bulletproof gear and her wounds treated, all while still reporting. Her cameraman even runs back for their gear, while the mic he's carrying picks up sound of bullets whizzing past him.
Actually, on a funny note, someone once asked me my opinion on the Iraq War, and I began with a discussion of the Iranian revolution in the 1970s. By the end of it I was told I thought too much.
