Ron Paul Supporters and the American ‘Empire’
by Steven CrowderFirst, let me say that I respect Ron Paul a great deal. More often than not, he’s fundamentally right on the pressing issues of today and I believe that the modern political landscape is a better place because of him. Over the current president, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
That being said, regarding his online clan of “libertarian” followers… eeesh. Here’s a recent tweet that I received from one of his followers after I so much as barely criticized Dr. Paul’s foreign policy ideas;
“Hey neocon, how the h*** can you justify our costly empire overseas? Only Ron Paul will stop this!!”
Come again, dummy?
Listen, their heart is in the right place but here’s the concept that many of the younger, supposedly anti-establishment, self-professed “libertarians” can’t seem to grasp; by it’s very definition and historical precedent, an empire isn’t a costly endeavor. It’s a profitable one. Be it the Roman, Ottoman or English, all of these tyrannical government’s built their empire in order to expand their territory and reap the bountiful spoils of war.
The reason the United States supposed “empire” expanding abroad is so costly would be because it in fact is no empire at all. The United States boldly walks in through the front door of these countries, provides unprecedented aid and/or overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens, after which we ask for nothing more than the land needed to bury the bodies of those who died to provide them with that privilege.
Now is that a legitimate role of government? Should we really be playing “hero” to the world? Say! Now that’s a meaningful dialogue that deserves a spirited discussion!
In my personal opinion (and it really is nothing more than an opinion), we needn’t be spending money or maintaining a presence anywhere in which it doesn’t benefit our own national security interests.
I think it’s important to remember that “creating an empire” and “nation-building” are two distinctly different and inherently incongruent ideas. If you want to say that the United States is spending too much money abroad, that’s fine. If you want to place the blame of 9/11 squarely on our very own shoulders, before going off on a tirade regarding government chem-trails… go nuts! Just remember that you can’t have it both ways.
We’re either spending too much money elsewhere in the world when we can’t afford it, or we’re an evil empire hell-bent on the destruction of every country not yet under the reign of our iron fist. Please put down the bamboo bong and pick one.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
365 Comments
Very good Steve
Well said Steve, Well said. If anything, America's problem has been an excess of benevolence, not imperialism.
America needs a foreign policy that is halfway between Bush's Interventionism and Paul's Isolationism…in other words, we actually have to weigh the costs and pick our fights, in accordance with Just War Theory. Imagine that!
We should never have gone into Iraq, but we most definitely should have gone into Afghanistan, and now that we are there, we need to stay in to win. Its just that simple.
"Hey neocon, how the h*** can you justify our costly empire overseas?"
If it were an empire, it would be a revenue generator, not a liability.
Sometimes I wish we were "Empire" building, just imagine all the cheap oil we would have from our own country………………IF we had just planted a flag in Baghdad!!!!!!!
Indeed, sir. Thumbs up.
Yes, exactly. It is a very peculiar sort of "Empire" that imposes no consul or governor, takes nothing from its subjects, and seeks only to allow those it "conquers" to be able to live on their own. I often wonder how the Libertarians explain that.
Oh wait…. they don't.
In my opinion, Libertarians are "chic" now, and alot of youngsters are piling onto the wagon. I consider myself a conservative libertarian. Like you, Steve, I think we should remove our presence in places it isn't needed, like Europe. Just imagine the dire straits the Eurozone would be in if they had to provide more for their defense instead of relying on us, and the money we'd save.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Damn, if it's an empire, does that mean we all have to speak Latin and all our roads will have to be re-routed to Rome? When are the chariot races and gladiator duels?
Then again, we do have bread and circuses (welfare and television).
I think Iraq was a correct decision, I just think the reasoning was misconstrued. Saddam did aid and abet our enemies, and he did try to assassinate American people and officials. He needed to be taken down, and I believe Iraq is a better place for it.
That's all my opinion though.
Dr Paul is a libertarian, and that is a philosophy- NOT a form of governance.
Conservatives govern. They understand that near anarchy is not acceptable, so within the philosophical boundaries of libertarian, and constitutional thought, attempt to form competent government.
Sometimes the results aren't so good. That's when his brand of naive but honest politics take root.
But you just can't disengage from world politics and hundreds of years of foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine, for example. Or the Truman Doctrine.
The Paulistas would do away with all this, and hope the world will love us. THAT is just as blithely ignorant as Obama's 'seas will begin to recede' slogans. It's a tough world. Realism is what is needed…
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." George Washington
A lot of the Ron Paul supporters are wrong in terminology, but right in the fundamentals. America is not an 'empire', not in the literal sense, but we are overreaching to our own detriment.
We're a generally idealistic nation run by generally opportunistic jerks. Our foreign policy, both in foreign aid and military assistance and basing, has grown way past 'looking out for American interests'. And that's what it should be about. American interests.
So, let's look past the inflammatory rhetoric and ask the hard questions.
- Should we be funding Pakistan with military and foreign aid while they attack us?
- Should we give money to anyone who isn't 100% toeing our line?
- Should we give aid at all?
- Should we be footing the lion's share of the bill for the defense of our allies in Europe? Shouldn't we make them pay their way?
- Do we really need to rebuild every country we set for in, with tens of billions in basing, aid and decades-long presence?
It's clear that our net-loss military business around the world wins battles, not wars, and is bleeding us dry financially. Americans know this, and they want to explore other options. So lets take Dr Paul's good ideas and run with them, and leave the ones we don't like alone.
NEWS FLASH: EMERGENCY WARNING…..
http://www.popmodal.com/video/9529/EMERGENCY-WARN...
Our Soldiers bled and died in 1990 and 1991 to expel Saddam from Kuwait – at the request of the WORLD. Others came up with Resolution 687 through the UN and we agreed to it when Saddam agreed to it.
Folks can say whatever they want, especially the punks who were in diapers when Desert Shield was being built an Desert Storm lit off, but our boys NEVER die in vain. This Nation OWED it to them to see it through even if slick Willie didn't have the GUTS to see it through.
W did and, yes, the Iraq people especially and the world are better off for it. Most of all, a terrorist was eliminated in us keeping our word to our soldiers. You Will Never Fight In Vain! Not Ever. And we will Never Forget. Iraq 2003 proves it.
The argument Ron Paul supporters make — and it's a good one — is that our endeavors overseas (call it nation-building, call it aid, call it whatever) isn't right because tax dollars are sent to people who aren't represented in our Republic (if you can still call it that.)
It's an argument with which I tend to agree. Here I am slaving for the welfare state, and we're sending aid to build Muslims mosques in Islamic wastelands. It's insulting.
That's all that needs to be said, Washington76. Thanks for posting that perfect quote — it's one of my favorites, and certainly relevant today.
Nice post Steel. That is what made this country great, and will once again. Everybody needs to remember a president cannot do everything they want. We the people have to give consent, and that is where voting comes into play.
Dr. Paul is a Isolationist. Very few of his followers will admit that, but true it is.
It is silly to claim that this nation was founded on the anti war sentiment. Quite the opposite is self evident. We make war when it is necessary, especially in the defense of Life, Liberty and Property. We prepare for war in hope for peace through strength.
If Dr. Paul would have seen this reality, this realism, he would have already been President, imho. That he doesn't means he never will be. I submit his son understands this, which is the main reason why he is different in his opinion on that particular point from his father.
The only reason the US is involved in the middle east is because of Jewish interests.
If there is another reason I'd love to hear it. Perhaps someone would care to elaborate on that instead of just hitting the thumbs down.
Is 2 million out of over 300 million something you would consider "overgrown"?
Not I.
I am just trying to add some common sense from a founding father who witnessed what governments would, and will do with no restraints.
I'm with you in theory, WantMyTaxesBack,
Putting infidel boots on the ground of the ancient Islamic caliphate to engage Islamists is a theory I can get behind.
Here's where it all went wrong: We had a president, all throughout the war, that kept telling the American people that Islam is a peaceful religion. Meanwhile we're fighting these savages based on our rules, and then using our treasure to rebuild their country.
First we must properly define the word "enemy." Next we must treat the enemy as such. There can be no mercy in justice. Last, we must stop the military free ride we are giving multiple countries around the world. Let them defend themselves or pay us for it.
"Hey neocon, how the h*** can you justify our costly empire overseas? Only Ron Paul will stop this!!”
And this is a great example of why, although I consider myself a libertarian (as opposed to a conservative), I cannot stomach the Libertarian Party, or the Paulistas.
Limited government and individual freedom at home does not occur in a vacuum. Events elsewhere in the world affect us, and we can either wait for another Pearl Harbor, as the Paulistas would have us do, and be pro-active and protect the rights we have at home from the many, many people and institutions in the world who would do us harm.
We missed our chance at that game when we decided to halt at Berlin instead of Moscow.
Don't you mean billions or even trillions?
Rand Paul is a conservative with strong libertarian leanings…
His dad is the full bore Libertarian. Extremely principled, but that does not mean he can govern. Like other principled backbenchers (Bachmann, Santorum, Cain) their voices are important because they are, fundamentally, correct.
But reality rears her ugly head and sometimes ugly compromises are needed. Mr Paul doesn't believe this.
It's why he'll never be elected…
The first principal of Libertarianism is.
Don't tread on me.
In other words. You have no right to tell me how to live and I have no right to tell you how to live provided that you or I don't harm each other.
Now lets apply that the U.S. Constitution which was was founded on the belief in Nation States.
So by extension Libertarianism holds. One Nation State has no right to tell another Nation State how to live or do their business.
The second tenant of Libertarianism is that a person or Nation State has no right to commit violence against another person or Nation State except in self defense.
That is why Libertarians hold that abortion is illegal and immoral. Abortion is the commission of an act of violence against another human being except in self defense.
So the whole question comes about Abortion comes down down when is a person considered defending itself against violence of an unborn child and therefore allowed to abort an unborn child, (answer. Only when an unborn child threatens the life of he mother).
Likewise the question of Nation Building comes down to when is another nation considered defending itself against violence perpetrated on it by another Nation State and therefore allowed to defend itself. This is where it becomes subjective in the real world; i.e. when is one Nation State considered to have committed an act of aggression against another Nation State and therefore the second Nation State allowed to attack the first Nation State as an act of self-defense?
Neocons justify Nation Building using Bush's First Strike Clause theory; i.e. If you believe or think you have evidence that another Nation State may attack you, you have a right to go in and kill its citizens without declaring war all in the name of spreading democracy. You also have the right to go into neighboring Nation States and kill its citizens and tell them how to live if you feel they are in danger of being attacked by that Nation State or even if they have been attacked by that Nation State because that action is a Corollary to the Bush First Strike doctrine.
Therefore Neocons justify Nation Building by saying that America has a right to invade other Nation States, kill its citizens and tell them how to live simply because the Neocons think that that Nation State may someday attack them.
That is like saying that I can go into someone's home and kill a person's family because I believe that one day that person may attack me. Ridiculous.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but he is too damn smart to be as wrong as I think he is on the points we disagree. So I give him the benefit of the doubt.
We didn't even make it THROUGH Berlin……….we stopped half way………..
Nice article, Steven. And keep drinking milk, I don't care what the vegans say. Hey, if we can't drink milk because animals only drink the milk of their own species, doesn't this mean it would be okay for us to drink milk if animals drank the milk of other species? And therefore, since animals eat other species, isn't okay for US to eat other species? Just sayin'
For a supposed 'empire,' the US is so bad at it we can't even silence the critics of our 'empire' from ripping us a new one at anytime.
And everything else:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/316074.php
Name these Evil Jewish Interests without paraphrasing the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
To answer your question, Israel is a bastion of western-style democracy in a despotic region that is also of strategic interest (the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean, and uh, oil) to the US.
We have a duty to protect democratic allies like Israel, and to protect our own interests in the region. When you pull your head out of "Mein Kampf" perhaps you can tell me how make all of Obama's green technology feasible (hence ending the importance of Gulf Oil) since no one else has done so.
I won't bother asking you to explain why letting the Islamo-fascists finish the job Hitler started is a good idea; one cannot argue rationally with anti-Semites.
The reason the United States supposed “empire” expanding abroad is so costly would be because it in fact is no empire at all. The United States boldly walks in through the front door of these countries, provides unprecedented aid and/or overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens, after which we ask for nothing more than the land needed to bury the bodies of those who died to provide them with that privilege.
Gawd I've been waiting for someone to write this paragraph! Thank you sir!
Congrats Mr. Crowder, you just became a target of "radical libertarianism"!
Nobody on the extreme end of libertarian, conservative, liberal or statist ideologies can accept the idea that there are in fact extremes on all edges of the political spectrum that extend over their horizons into an alternate reality of unintended consequences.
What I have said time and time again is that the "Nolan Scale" is indeed flawed, every perception of ideological purity can indeed be perverted, think of the "Nolan Scale" in a "spherical" construct rather than a "linear" two dimensional graphic of extremes.
The scale is also missing a three dimensional axis which displays the doppelganger twin of all, even in the purest of intent one can slip across from the "good" side of the ideological axis into its most "evil" form of its mirror opposite.
While "many" are well intended in thinking that O Blah Blah care resolves the issues of access and coverage it also denies the human need for choices and liberties, I believe that this effect is actually intended as a tool of emotional control over the puerile cause of a benevolent aspiration.
I believe that what is missing from Nolan's scale is the concept of good (light) vs. evil (dark), or heads vs. tails.
What I prefer to refer to it as is "benevolence of cause" and "malevolence of effect", far too many do not see both sides of the ideological coin even when their truest desire is to do good rather than evil.
All ideologies have the natural aspiration for good as well as a natural propensity for evil.
One would not "legalize" murder nor would they legalize rape or theft, we would hope.
I believe that while well intended, many who adhere to Mr Paul's ideas forget the moral failing of their desire to protect their own interests against the need to protect the moral cause of "just" law.
So many buy into left, right, up and down that they have isolated themselves into one corner or another of a one sided "sphere" which does encompass moral behavior and libertine desire.
I could go on but in short, Nolan was a complete moron and people should ignore his pigeonhole ideological construct which was designed for the purpose of insisting that everyone has an ideological corner which encompasses only a cause but ignores its effects.
It IS in fact possible to slip beyond the edge of his "map" into a "dark side" which goes well beyond moral precepts, logic or reason.
Logic tells us that you can go west around the Earth by ship or by aircraft and eventually arrive at your point of departure, does this concept not apply in politics as well?
Can you not go so far left that you arrive to your right or so far down that you eventually arrive at the top or absolute center of a sphere?
Nolan was completely wrong, politics like most other things in the universe has a mass as well as a viewable surface and horizontal and vertical axis with an absolute center all of which have exact polar opposites.
Thank you for your time.
How about you provide some proof.
One Word: Oil.
Since half the country seems to think it's wrong to pump and refine our own oil.
Mr Paul seems to be a polarizing person at this time. If some one disagrees with his view those that are fully committed to the values attack viciously. The same can be said of those who believe that he is wrong in his views.
In my opinion he is very sound on everything except foreign policy. While I would love to see our troops brought home from across the world I also realize that it is not something that could be done rapidly. We provide safety to the world thru our troops stationed in multiple countries, but how many of those countries actually pay anything for that safety?
This country should not be into nation building or an empire. If a country wants to have the same type of govt we have those people need to make it happen themselves or they will not be able to keep it. A very good example of this is our own country right now, the Founding Fathers provided us all with freedom after the Revolution and what have we allowed to happen to this country.
A change has to be made or we will lose everything.
I'll play.
The reason is strategic influence over resources. In this case, oil. The logic is simple.
- First, imagine a Middle East with oil, and without Jews.
- Next, imagine a Middle East with Jews, but no oil.
Which one would we be involved in?
Now, I don't subscribe to the 'War for Oil' thing as such, but it's very clear that oil is a vital component of the American economy. Keeping the supply lines running is a national American interest. Unfortunately, oil is a vital resource to the entire world, and it empowers hostile regimes to take power.
That dynamic of oil, located as it is in a very backwards and regressive part of the world, creates wealth and power for very irrational and hostile nations. It makes the reasonably more advanced and liberal (in a positive sense) world have to deal with them, which creates a balance of power that cannot be ignored.
There are, no doubt, some level of well funded Jewish influence, which are in play to counter well funded Islamic influence. I think you could clearly make the case that the Islamic influence is more dangerous in any quantifiable way. Oil has empowered Islam, which has caused a Jewish reaction.
When the oil runs out, the Middle East will be about as significant to the world as sub-Saharan Africa.
The reality is American is paying for the defense of Europe, Japan and other countries. Europe and Japan have the means to pay for their own defense but spend their money elsewhere because America would come running if they were attacked. An alliance with Europe if fine but is supposed to be an alliance, which the Europeans are not holding up by decimating their military budgets. Who are the stupid ones for paying for the defense of countries that can pay their own way but don't? We are. Ron Paul is right to focus on American security. If the allies will not uphold their part of the bargain, then at a minimum we need to redefine this alliance. Europeans should pay for the defacto American defensive shield they rely on. Conservatives want to pay this price because they are enamored with military power. But beyond the power trip, we do not need to police the world.
I call many of the "Pot" Paul worshippers…a part of the big (3) P's…
Rabid Attack Dogs of Palin…Perry and Paul.
Say anything…anything negative about any of the above…and they come out of the woodwork…doing their evil…attacking the messenger not the message!
Watch…here what happens…now that I have posted this…out in droves…calling names…making fun…and doing their evil.
That is a way to get out the vote…yessir…and they really are getting out the votes.
NO TO 'POT' PAUL EVER!
You sound a lot like Obama. Your entire post referred to the U.S. mercilessly killing innocent citzens which of course is a load of crap. Much like our dear leader.
I'm surprised he didn't
resortstoop to the tried-and-true "international bankers" canard.Ha! Mr. Crowder, you just pissed off over half the Ron Paul sycophants on this website for calling it correctly! Kudos!
I also find that many of them deny the Christian Founding of this country while sympathizing with groups such as Hamas which supports the destruction of Israel.
I live in Texas, and have followed Doctor Paul and his service for along time now. He is not extreme, his philosophy is freedom. I have received allot of knowledge from people who have the same thought process. Like Judge Nap. and John Stossel, and many others. They make a very compelling cases for what our founders gave US. Progressives have rewritten history for their own gain since Wilson in the early 19th century.
Well, well. Look at all of the anti Semites already and my post is only 1 minute old.
While I agree that the US is hardly an empire (at least in the classic sense of the term), it is definitely the only "world power," and has been for several decades. No other country has, since WWII, been able to project decisive military force anywhere in the world — and we can move an entire Army division plus Marines, Rangers, manned and unmanned airpower to any battle zone anywhere on the globe in under 24 hours. No other nation has ever come close to that capability, NONE.
That doesn't just keep us safe, that keeps our allies safe too. And that means that a sizable portion of the entire world population depends on us to keep them safe. It is an enormous burden being the dominant superpower and the only world power, but it is also a tremendous benefit to our country that we do so.
We are the world's primary exporter of manufactured goods — not of crappy little kids toys, but airplanes, drilling equipment, high tech electronics and on and on and on. Does anyone think we would still enjoy that position if we left the security of the free world to the French, Germans or Russians? Or to the individual nations themselves?
One of the most basic, primary conditions necessary for capitalism to operate and to flourish is a secure environment. Look at the third world, and high on the list of problems they have is (1) lack of a free market, and (2) lack of internal and external security. While we cannot be Team America, World Police, can we really just withdraw our military and leave world security to tyrants, thugs, and that band of idiots called the UN?
I rest my case.
"In my opinion he is very sound on everything except foreign policy."
Maybe, considering he is sound on EVERYTHING ELSE, as you stated, he is actually also sound on foreign policy, and it is you who is unsound in that area.
"Watch…here what happens…now that I have posted this…out in droves…calling names…making fun…and doing their evil. "
You do realize your whole post was one big flame throwing session right? Actually, the first line was you making fun of him and calling him a name. Hypocrite much?
Arguably, the US has had that policy for decades, and it's exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. The US has a major trust issue when it comes to making allies, and it isn't hard to see why. An policy in between that of realpolitik on one side and ideology on the other. We abandoned the Poles, South Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Georgians on the alter of political expediency, and they were hardly alone.
Iraqis? Well, lets go back to 1991 – the US was at war with Iraq, and Hussein's forces were getting crushed. We encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein, we promised them aid and freedom – and rose up they did. What did we do then? We just left because a hundred days were up and Kuwait was free. Hussein then crushed the uprisings, killing over 200,000 men, woman and children, slaughtering many of the well respected local opposition leaders (The sort of people you want on your side when your reconstructing a new government. But since they were dead, what we had to settle for were mostly dregs, who lacked the popular support and respect of the population.).
After that little disaster, no wonder we had so many problems trying to get the Iraqis to trust us in 2003 – after all, we betrayed them on the basis of political expediency once before, how did they know we would not abandon them again?
Are the Koreans paying us to protect them? The Germans? Turks?
If we don't have the stomach to wipe out every Taliban man, woman, and child……..why do we persist? We can't possibly win, can we?
Our missiles in Poland? Let the Poles buy them.
You do realize…that this is not my first comment…and every time I post something about "Pot" Paul…they do exactly what I say…and now here you are…proving me right!
Making my point for me…thank you…and to all others who will come out of the woodwork to protect their false god…known as 'pot' paul!
He'll never be elected because he is woefully ignorant in foreign policy concerns…because he is an isolationist.
Regarding Dr Paul's military stance, he'd be considered non-interventionist, not isolationist as that typically applies to trade and immigration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM
Thumbs up, Eileen.
"Give me liberty, or Give me Death."
Patrick Henry – 03/23/1775
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp...
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." George Washington
I very well could be unsound on foreign policy, I have been told I am unsound on many issues.
President Washington was WRONG on this issue. A large, standing Army may have been "inauspicious to liberty" in 1776. It's a virtual NECESSITY in 2011. If you don't believe it, ask Czechoslovakia in 1939, South Korea in 1950 or France in BOTH 1915 and 1939. Or how about China in 1940 or Cambodia in 1977? They were invaded and subjugated by countries WITH large standing Armies precisely BECAUSE they didn't have one.
"The reason the United States supposed “empire” expanding abroad is so costly would be because it in fact is no empire at all. The United States boldly walks in through the front door of these countries, provides unprecedented aid and/or overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens, after which we ask for nothing more than the land needed to bury the bodies of those who died to provide them with that privilege. "
What an arrogant, ignorant statement.
"Boldly walks in the front door of these countries"….with what right? At what monetary and human cost? How bold is it to march through the front door of an impoverished nation with a military 1/100th the size of ours?
"Provides unprecedented aid"….ah, so the welfare state is ok as long as we give it to other countries.
"overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens"…like the Taliban, who we empowered when the Russians were occupying Afghanistan? We have no idea who we are giving the power to. What an ignorant statement.
"after which we ask for nothing more than the land needed to bury the bodies of those who died to provide them with that privilege." LOL ARE YOU CRAZY?!?!?! You are either lying to us or lying to yourself because you believe this. We take much more than just land to bury a few bodies.
I like how he doesn't even mention the tremendous amount of civilian casualties that occur in these nations. As of now it is in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
This was such a ridiculous article, I honestly cannot fathom how far people will go to justify our foreign policy. It is insane, it is harmful, it it bankrupting us, and it is killing thousands of people annually.
Everybody needs to think: "If Ron Paul is so right, and so studied and so spot on with everything BUT foreign policy, well, maybe he is right on that too, and it is I that needs to dig deeper on this issue"
Ron Paul has had access to important government knowledge for thirty years, access to powerful people for thirty years, and has studied relentlessly to find the truth on these matters. I think he is a lot more likely to have the right answers than Mr. Crowder here.
It's overgrown if the role our military plays expands beyond the constitutional boundary of "defense", and it can be easily argued that more than 50% of our spending is as much.
They didn't like that when I pointed out their anti-Semitism either, my friend.
What the Paulites don't understand is that we do not live in 1789. We live in 2011. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Good?
If it's good can you tell me how you would react if China opened a military base in Mexico?
In the name of benevolence of course. You know how those Communists love to help people too. Or maybe they could park a Battleship off the coast of California. Just park it there. No big deal?
We had the Monroe Doctrine for a reason. But keep in mind other countries feel the same way we do. People are people. Economics is the study of human behaviour. Why people do what they do, how they react. It is pretty predictable. And Ron Paul is a master of Economics. Who else can say that? The people who didn't know they were creating a housing bubble?
And we don't have to choose between the "spending too much" or "empire building" argument. It can be both. You are using "Establishment Logic." My term. I just invented it.
Saying "Neo-Con" has become a cliche.
I thought we were passed this. You'll notice the entire GOP is against action in Libya. A nation proven to fund terrorism. They all want to be like Ron Paul without the stigma. Or chem-trails.
Hey, freedom is always in style.
Thumbs down to both of you
Bad idea. We could have lost that one, easy. Even with nukes.
You know those black and white pictures in New York after Victory in Europe? 1945? The parading, the celebrating, the embracing? I realize it wasn't nirvana for every single American; but was it not, generally, a victory for everybody? Or is it just a photo of an isolated event that didn't really characterize the moment whatsoever? I don't know. I wasn't alive then. Neither were my parents. But today, we're not just divided as to whether or not we should be in overseas conflicts; we hardly have any broad agreement as to what our aims are or what it would mean to achieve victory.
I'm not just ranting like I've got no hand in this. For much of my life I've been selfish and complacent in my role as a citizen. Therefore, I certainly contributed to our problems. Thanks to everybody, the author and commentors alike, for taking time trying to make sense of it all.
Principles dont change with time, nor does the world. There was just as much reason to stay out of wars then as there is now, and just like today government sought out wars like they do now. Do you really think the world is different? Its always been the same.
And a pretty good case it is. We are the world's defense because no one else is remotely capable (or interested, for that matter.)
The main problem with Libertarians is that they are so unlike von Mises, Rothbard and Ron Paul…arrogant and no class. Rothbard, Mr Libertarian himself, said he disliked most libertarians, he called them Modal-Libertarians.
I don't believe the United States is an Empire in any sense of the word. Neither Roman nor Star Wars.
What we are is a nation of good hearted people who most of the time would be better off minding our own beeswax.
The hardest part for me being a supporter of Ron Paul is the foreign policy stuff. It's hard to wrap your brain around it. We want to help people in need. We want to stop the bully. It's hard to realize that helping people in need has only hurt them more and stopping the bully has just turned the bullied kid into a bigger bully than the original bully.
It tooke me a long time to come around, but I do believe Dr. Paul is right on foreign policy. My caveat would be that the United States should have a policy of taking in true refugees from all countries. People who are oppressed and in danger in their native lands would be much better immigrants than much of what we have now.
DR. PAUL IS NOT an isolationist! His philosophy on foreign policy mirrors our Founding Fathers' philosophy. I do admit that he did a lousy job during the debates of explaining his position on foreign policy. As a libertarian, I am compelled once again to set right the misconceptions regarding Paul's foreign policy. Please read his position on National Defense at this link: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-de....
After reading the link posted above. Please respond and let me know what you disagree with regarding his policy.
Steve Crowder, your analysis of the Roman Empire is not entirely accurate. Their endless wars on their borders is one of the reasons for their demise. There are numerous commentaries that draw similar parallels to the decay of the United States to the fall of the Roman Empire. Both entities are/were engaged in endless wars. There are other reasons, of course, (immorality, entitlements, etc.) not relevant to this blog.
Let me assume for our discussion you are correct. What do think of the Patriot Act? Are you safer? Are you free? You should realize you are not on both counts. Washington's knowledge is applicable today as it was in his time. Man has not changed one bit.
Huh? You are making fun of someone and then complaining because someone says something about it? You just really aren't making much sense. Are you sure you are a stranger to "Pot"?
and then the Build-a-Burgers, with the help of the Illuminati, the Lizard men and the ghost of Elvis' Dog will be there to defend us from her and her kind
As an additional thought to the post that I wrote above, Ron Paul receives more donations from the military than the other candidates. I think this is very telling about how the military feels regarding their utilization. You can read about it here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/904...
Principles do not change…times and circumstances do.
America cannot isolate itself and expect the world not to fall into chaos.
Let me get this straight…Our current foreign policy doesn't qualify as an empire because we aren't making money at it? This article is absolutely terrifying.
I'd also like to point out that the three 'empires' you gave as examples all collapsed due to spreading themselves too thin and not being able to finance their operations. One of them, the English, had a profitable empire including some colonies in the New World, until the locals refused to accept their presence and engaged them in a costly and futile war.
We aren't spreading freedom. We're killing and being killed. I'd also like to point out the fact that Iraq never attacked us, and never had any association with any member of Al Qaeda. 10 years in Afghanistan. 8 in Iraq. Where is this going? If it isn't an empire (and therefore not making us money) why is a country $15 Trillion in debt over there fighting multiple unnecessary/unconstitutional wars with no end in sight? We're not stopping terrorism. We're just shortening their commute.
My biggest beef with Libertarians is that they talk of utopia without explaining how we get there.
I'm all for dreams, but show me the path.
How do you dismantle the wars?
How do you end fed involvement in education?
How do you achieve real free markets?
Agreed
They're going to be crying into their illegal bong when RP loses what will be his last bid for the White House, the old fart. I say good riddance. I've had two and a half years of these dingbats going back all the way to Glenn Beck's 912 project. I'm going to rub their phoney R3VOLUTION crap into their noses come next Spring!
They'll all go vote for Obama after that because they want legalized vice any way they can get it IMO.
"Walks in through the front door"?? You don't need a $700+ Billion military budget and 900+ Military bases in 135 countries when you're invited. Just ask Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, or any of the other countries we're currently dropping bombs on.
If we are "giving power back to the citizens" why have they been shooting at us for the last 10 years?
It's not an extremist minority that hates us over there. It's the majority. How much love are you gonna have for the people who just dropped a laser-guided missile on your neighbors house?
Oh……..go smoke some pot and calm down.
I disagreed with the scope of the Patriot Act when it was enacted and still do. Washington was referring to the establishment of a "large, standing Army" in that speech from which your quote comes and he was WRONG. A large, powerful, standing Army is a necessity if we intend to remain free. I wasn't enamoured with the draft (though I served voluntarily for 8 years, including two tours in Vietnam), but our "large, standing army" of that era was grossly MISUSED by the politicians in charge. Nothing could be stupider than preventing one's soldiers from shooting back, just because the shots came from somewhere across an arbitrary national boundry line, for example. Yet, Johnson thought that was a "reasonable" ROE! What a bunch of morons!
We're broke. We need to demand payment for the protection our troops provide. Otherwise, pack 'em up and bring 'em home. We. Can't. Pay For. All. Our. Bases. Anymore.
Having been a Libertarian since college (30 years ago) I have listened to many debates about foreign policy in Libertarian circles. I have friends that are Paul supporters, who are stalwart non-interventionists.
My own argument is that there IS good and evil in this world. One of the things I love about the LIbertarian philosophy is optimistic belief that all humans are innately capable of great good and self-sufficiency given the opportunity i.e. freedom. But the one thing I have slowly come around to, and I think 9/11 underscored this for me, was the capacity for evil in this world. I believe that some LIbertarians are afraid to embrace the notion of "evil".
The philosophical question is: do we step in where we see evil? Do we stop the "blood diamond" industry or the stoning of women? Do we stand for those people–born into countries where they start life already shackled by their political, religious and/or military leaders? It's something to ponder. Wherever you see Islamist militaries invading countries, particularly in Northern Africa, there is evil. It is shocking, and there are numerous books that are not fiction to illuminate the carnage.
Here's another question. A year ago, protesters in Iran almost toppled the oppressive and aggressive Mullahs and Ahmadinejad, but we did not step in to help with the final push. Should we have?
It's not a bad thing for "the people" to fight for their liberty–then they own it, it is theirs, but is it our obligation to help? When we know they are throwing over evil for something better, is it not morally correct to lend a hand?
Look at Israel, the one free country surrounded by theocracies intent on wiping them off the face of the earth. Who is our ally? Israel has contributed to the betterment of the world through their people in the field of medical technology-and engineering-what have their detractors done–except try to move everyone to the dark ages?
Our financial concerns in the US are more a result of Big Government over-reach and expansion than our aid to foreign countries. Some wars perhaps should not be fought, and perhaps for those who tell us to "get out", maybe we should do just that. I don't think they mean it, though.
Libertarians are "live and let live" and a Republic can NOT survive under that notion.
Conservatives govern with morality and the Role of Law or Nature's Law (God) as our guide. That's the only way this nation would survive.
Libertarianism IMO leads to anarchy.
Again…try and understand the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. There is a huge difference and people like you, for some unknown reason, can't seem to understand the difference. I am sure wikipedia will help you. Please take the time so you don't go the democrat path of telling lies until people think they are true.
Oh…and what are we trying to win in Afghanistan? The 3-4 trillion dollar worth of resources that are there? Sounds like we are an empire and someone is getting rich off our best dying for it.
Please read Obamas foreign policy advisor's Zbigniew Brzezinski book "The Grand Chessboard" (which is just a more Machiavellian version of kissingers geo political stratgy that relies on the CIA and drone strikes to destablize the region rather then the more costly conventional method war set forth initially by the Bush Cheney kissinger troika) outlining a plan for American hegomony over the middle east and Eurasia in an effort to cut off the supply of oil to Russia and China, and then, read Chalmers Johnson's book "blow back" and tell us its not "empire". Maybe then you'll have a right to write an article critisizing us.The only SANE voices in the republican party.
We are trillions of dollars in debt, the planet HATES US, our manufacturing sector has been shipped over seas to communist China no thanks to neocon and progressive keynesian economic policy and our curency has been totally stripped of value by the PRIVATE federal reserve.WE ARE BROKE,WE ARE WITHOUT PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP and our nation is coming apart at the seams no thanks to either party. The American people have HAD IT. Ron Paul is trust worthy, not a sneaky neocon socialist and has a record that shows 25 years of dedication to THIS the United States of America and her people. AMERICA FIRST.We WILL take this party back.
There is 3-4 trillion dollars of natural resources estimated to be in Afghanistan. Thats why were are there.
Define "win".
We beat Hitler in less than 4 years, yet 8 years later can't seem to get the upper hand on the Iraqi's we supposedly are 'liberating'? There's something wrong with the mission. There were no WMD's. There was no Al Qaeda (until after we invaded).
We had to retaliate against Afghanistan, but a multi-trillion dollar 10 year full-scale military occupation doesn't sound like an appropriate strategy given the enemy.
Give em Hell Ashrak.
Plus one for ya!
Mr Crowder…please, please, please stick to the comedy. Your opinion, while you are entitled to, is way off base and a very amateur argument to convince people we SHOULD be the policemen of the world because only the US can ever do good and right by people of the planet.
We continue this perpetual feeling of countries wanting to hate us and kill us because we are over there. Let them shoot the each other, why should it matter to us outside of wanting to create an empire and have all peoples do it our way?
Non-intervention…please educate yourself about it
"We abandoned the Poles, South Vietnamese, Iraqis, and Georgians on the alter of political expediency, and they were hardly alone."
But these example's prove my point. We should commit troops only where we know we can win and have the will to do so.
When we fight, we should strike as hard and as fast and as brutally as possible. We should be unafraid to bribe local leaders, to torture captured terrorists, and to play hardball. But we should always make sure to commit ourselves to rational causes which serve our interests.
Does Iraq and Libya serve our interests in such a way as to compensate for the costs? No. Does Afghanistan? Most assuredly yes.
What's your fetish with pot anyways? The fact you capitalize it makes it even weirder. Ron Paul opposes drug use btw, he just happens to think he doesn't have the right to tell a grown adult what they can or can't do in their own home if it causes no harm to anyone.
Paul supporters aren't attacking the messenger or the message out of allegiance to Paul, but out of a moral obligation to voice opposition to malicious and misinformed policies and ideas that are ruining this country.
And as for your "getting out the vote" comment, Out of the three candidates you mentioned, Paul is the only one who has been shown consistently in polls to beat Obama in a head-to-head match up. With the exception of Mitt, no other candidate can say that.
The United States boldly walks in through the front door of these countries, provides unprecedented aid and/or overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens..
Like helping to overthrow democracies and installing dictatorships in countries like Chile ?
We cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore the monetary crisis before us. RP predicted it. RP understands it. Less than his prescription is rearranging deck chairs.
let's look at the graph:
To the FAR left you have Communism. Slightly right of that would be fascism, which allows some private ownership. Then you have liberalism/Progressivism- slow motion statists, so-called 'moderates', conservatives, libertarians- and then the FAR right which would be no governance at all- anarchy.
Libertarianism is like the Old West, best comparison. Anything goes, just don't screw with me.
Conservatism, on the other hand, has libertarian beliefs but realizes hard choices need to be made for the betterment of everyone yet maintaining freedom. Tough act. And why governors make better Presidents than legislators…
I think if you take out the first 3 words, "The only reason", you would have made a statement that nobody in their right mind would disagree with.
Actually, that WON"T work. You would have to lose the second "is" also.
"The US is involved in the middle east because of Jewish interests." That much is true. True enough, anyway. Established as a nation for Jews after WWII, Israel is likely defended for them, as well.
But there are other SERIOUS reasons for being in the middle east, and you know this. Its doubtful we would have avoided conflict during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait even if Israel didn't exist. And though you could argue that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred in Israel's absence, our response to the attack in going after the Taliban was a United States interest. I suppose we COULD HAVE simply abandoned our democratic ally (Israel) in order to achieve instant peace with militant Islam. On second thought, I'm pretty certain they would have come for us eventually, as well.
I hope this is enough of an answer.
You must be logged in to post a comment.