animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
But it IS RELATED to US foreign policy and Ron Paul is the one candidate who would not have created these messes in the first place!
No, but he would create whole new messes, which may be even worse.
Quote:
It might be worth experimenting with in view of the mess created for the Iraqi people. I can't imagine a more hell'ish hell. We've done war. It has become a knee-jerk reaction while it should be the very, very last resort. It's too easy.
You use an example which does not support your position very well. Very few candidates would have invaded Iraq without the cherry-picked and/or created intelligence that was used to justify it. How can this show Dr. Paul being the "only" candidate who would not have created that mess?
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore, he is unlikely to create further messes.
That is illogical as it assumes isolationism does not create messes as well.
Quote:
Isolationism most likely comes with its own problems, but again, I cannot imagine a more hell'ish hell than that suffered by Iraq and ohhh, how many nations have been the victims of US foreign policy!
More hellish than 9/11 with a nuke added? More hellish than women living under Taliban rule. More hellish than the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia prior to the NATO actions? Looking at the world with blinders is a good way to create a knee-jerk reaction. The poorly considered invasion of Iraq becomes the isolationist movement and the next time there really needs to be some action we ignore it as we did in the 1930s right up to where we were directly attacked and could not continue to do so.
Quote:
The American people are sick and tired of war, of the trillions spent on them and of the inexcuseable carnage and human suffering caused by them. If you don't send them in to begin with, there is far less to mitigate.
Not if the inaction creates a larger problem to mitigate. How large would the problem have been if Hilter had allowed us to continue to ignore him? If he had not declared war after the Japanese attack we still would have ignored his actions and our aid to the Allies would have been curtailed due to our conflict with Japan. German war echnology would have had longer to develop without interruption.
Quote:
Quote:
How does he prevent historical actions? The future is unknown and isolationism can be just as much of a problem as prior actions.
Quote:
Let's try it. I bet it will serve up it's own problems for sure but nothing like the hell-fire unleashed on Iraq, ... and I imagine Iran will suffer the same, especially if Mit Romney gets in. He can't wait to invade Iran.
How does that compare to the hell unleashed on Europe and the rest of the world because the US held an isolationist position that embolded the Axis powers? One good nuke can provide enough material to kill millions in a very slow and painful fashion.
Quote:
He is in favor of defence and not of nation building militarism. If we aren't molesting other countries, there is a much greater probability they will leave us alone.
Really? Have you read any history at all? The economies of the world are inter-connected and as such we cannot be left alone by such actions.
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, it seems that many of the concerns held by the Tea Party are the same concerns held by the Occupy Movement.
Neither have a central organization, leadership, or even concerns. The occupy movement is wantingto have discussions and not a clear position.
Quote:
Neither have concerns?
Right, neither have concerns as an organization. They have individual concerns which change from person to person and do not apply to all within the movement. That is why they are both fringe movements.
Quote:
Quote:
The US has become a warrior nation and is itself, rogue, terrorizing nation after nation.
Like those who harbor terrorist who plan attacks on the US?
Quote:
And since occupying various countries in the middle east, there are even more who would like to attack the US.
Not really, as the governments who ASKED for assistance in the area are no more lilely to want to attack the US. Kuwait and their "allies" in the region were more than happy to have the assistance of the multinational force led by the US. The new government in Libya is not likely to support terrorist groups in the near future. The government in Afghanistan supported the terrorist organization which did attack us. The old government in Iraq disliked us very much for not allowing them to keep Kuwait while killing their own people.
Quote:
The hornet's nest has been stirred. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate to have been honest enough to point out this glaring fact.
Huh?
Quote:
Policing the world, shoving democracy down their throats, imposing sanctions if they do not obey .... of course they are murderously angry with the US and it is the foreign policy to date which leads us more and more into danger. And if we don't stop, it is 100% guaranteed there will be endless blood shed. Isn't it worth trying a different tact? As Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it." Wars just create more wars. It will be endless.
I can see how asking the Iranians very nicely will keep them from building a nuclear arsenal and how none of the nations would ever allow one or more of their nuclear weapons to be used in an attack. Look at how rationally the North Korean government has acted with sanctions and tell us how it would have been better without them and the decreased income for their military.