Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Issues with USA's foreign policy

triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 7:49:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I found this speech by Ron Paul, which clearly does expose some of the issues with USA's foreign policy despite it being somewhat exaggerated.

"I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!

What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!"


Thoughts on this? Is Ron Paul right about our foreign policy being too aggressive, or should we be more interventionist than we currently are?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:29:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 7:49:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I found this speech by Ron Paul, which clearly does expose some of the issues with USA's foreign policy despite it being somewhat exaggerated.



"I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!

What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!"



Thoughts on this? Is Ron Paul right about our foreign policy being too aggressive, or should we be more interventionist than we currently are?

He's right. People who believe the "We went to fight for freedom" argument are too blind and naive to see the truth. The U.S gov does not give a sh*t about democracy in these countries, the government has economic and political interests that disregard humanity. Ron Paul is 100% correct.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
KingDavid8
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Our foreign policy is definitely too aggressive. We need to be more reluctant to hurt people, make war a last resort, and only initiate violence when we are reasonably certain we are ultimately saving more lives than we're taking. The last time the US used military intervention that was truly justified was probably WWII. I can't think of any more recent examples than that.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:34:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
For all those people laughing with an overweight belly laugh at the notion of a foreign policy of isolationism, please read that OP a few times when you can catch your breath.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:37:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 9:34:06 PM, KingDavid8 wrote:
Our foreign policy is definitely too aggressive. We need to be more reluctant to hurt people, make war a last resort, and only initiate violence when we are reasonably certain we are ultimately saving more lives than we're taking. The last time the US used military intervention that was truly justified was probably WWII. I can't think of any more recent examples than that.

WWII against Germany wasn't even justified either. Germany was not nearly a threat to the USA like Japan was. Germany was already beaten by the Russians by the time we started sending people over there to die. All the lives lost in the cold war was also a colossal waste.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:11:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 7:49:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I found this speech by Ron Paul, which clearly does expose some of the issues with USA's foreign policy despite it being somewhat exaggerated.



"I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

It would certainly help but it wouldnt completely defeat terrorism entirely. Some terrorists genuinely hate America and want to attack us no matter what, so some of them would simply come up with a different excuse to wage jihad against us if we changed up our strategy

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

We let the oppressive regime in Libya slide down the toilet and now the country has completely gone to hell. Democracy doesnt automatically solve all the problems of a country, and if a nation ends up as a particularly weak democracy following the wake of an oppressive regime, then it might as well not have any government at all.

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

Our undying support to Israel and stationing troops in Saudi Arabia also play a role in that, but good point.

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

Some people would just point to the claim that more Americans would have died had we not invaded, and then we are now arguing with each other using completely hypothetical scenarios.

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

Now youre getting somewhere.

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

Im sure there are some who would dispute that and that such a statement might not even be true to begin with.

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

Straying off the path of foreign policy here.

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

They might choose to make peace with big government then. Its no guarantee that if they make that conclusion that they wold then scale back foreign policy.

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

military intervention =/= managing an empire.

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

Im fairly certain that World War II Wasnt a war america entered based on lies and deception. The Korean War also arguably wasnt based on lies and deception since that was to prevent North Korea from annexing South Korea..... Iraq and Vietnam sure were total f*ck ups but going to war isnt 'always' done on lies and propaganda.

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

Ira1 and Afghanistan arent becoming the 51st and 52nd states.

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

He probably was before frickin Isis showed up

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

Lol. If a military draft is beign planned then who is planning it? This is straight up fear-mongering at this point. "Change foreign policy or else the draft is coming back!"

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

They might just make peace with it knowing how pro-interventionist a good half of the country already is.

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

That qualifies possibly only for Iraq and none of the other wars fought over the past century.

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

Last I checked Obama isnt the one who invaded Afghanistan.

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

People havent lived life according to what their holy books say since the time it was discovered the Earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around/

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

Those bombs and bribes will come in handy when the other side isnt interested in negotiating... Im pretty certain that Osama wouldnt be interested in any kind of peace talks with the US after 9/11 went down and im also pretty sure he still wasnt interested the day we finally shot him.

Thoughts on this? Is Ron Paul right about our foreign policy being too aggressive, or should we be more interventionist than we currently are?

He's in the neighborhood of what we should be doing with our foreign policy about 50% of the time, and the other 50% of the time he's trying to become a philosopher and doing so very badly.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
McAfee2016
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 1:05:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 7:49:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I found this speech by Ron Paul, which clearly does expose some of the issues with USA's foreign policy despite it being somewhat exaggerated.



"I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!

What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!"



Thoughts on this? Is Ron Paul right about our foreign policy being too aggressive, or should we be more interventionist than we currently are?

This is one of my favorite speeches of all time and I think one of the most powerful. Here is where I break from Ron's philosophy: Once we get in, we can't get out until we IMPROVE the conditions of the country we have intervened in. Charlie Wilson who was the principle architect of the US aid sent to Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets said this:

"We simply cannot make the same mistake. The lesson here is about more than the good manners of reciprocating a favor. It takes much more to make America safe than winning on the battlefield. Had we remained engaged in Afghanistan, investing in education, health and economic development, the world would be a very different place today. The aftermath of a congressional committee's decision so long ago has turned out to be a warning that America is not immune to the problems of the very poorest countries. In today's world, any person's well-being -- whether he or she is in Kandahar, Kigali or Kansas -- is connected to the well-being of others."

Had we remained in Afghanistan through financial aid and reconstruction, perhaps maybe the Taliban wouldn't have turned into the monster that they ended up being, and we wouldn't have had to go back there under Bush to lose more lives and further give them a reason to hate us. Our problem is that we either don't think or we don't listen when it comes to foreign policy.

Wilson is right. If we planned for the future and took the future into consideration, we would be living in a drastically different world today.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:05:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm with Ron Paul for the most part. I hate the thought of Hilary continuing our destructive foreign policy of the last 20 years.

One worry I have with an overly hands off approach is the China-Taiwan dilemma. Had we not had policy of looking to support Taiwan there would have been good odds China would have taken over.

I heard a report today that we are going to start selling Vietnam arms, which is part to keep China on notice that they should not have imperialist desires.

China also f'ing around with Philippines. If they don't believe we would intervene then we are in a weak position like when Obama drew the line with Syria on chemical weapons then did nothing when they used them.

We need to stop the madness and take a greater isolationist stance, but it can be taken too far.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:01:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 2:05:55 AM, slo1 wrote:


We need to stop the madness and take a greater isolationist stance, but it can be taken too far.

Do you think Trump will take isolationism too far?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:19:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:11:00 PM, imabench wrote:

Im fairly certain that World War II Wasnt a war america entered based on lies and deception. The Korean War also arguably wasnt based on lies and deception since that was to prevent North Korea from annexing South Korea..... Iraq and Vietnam sure were total f*ck ups but going to war isnt 'always' done on lies and propaganda.

We practically forced Germany to declare war on us with our involvement supplying Russia and Britain. The propaganda saying Germany was a threat to the USA and American democracy was entirely misleading. Even Russia, despite McCarthyism, was not a real threat to the USA. Korea was even less of a real threat.

The war with Mexico was more justifiable than any of those other wars.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:27:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 12:01:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:05:55 AM, slo1 wrote:


We need to stop the madness and take a greater isolationist stance, but it can be taken too far.

Do you think Trump will take isolationism too far?

I'm not certain and I don't know that anyone including Trump knows to be honest.

I'm just imagining what could happen should South Korea refuse to pay for US presence at the boarder with NK. Would he pull those troops?
What types of arms would he sell them?

I happen to agree with significantly reducing troops, but believe it needs to be done in conjunction with enabling SK including weapon sales and aid.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 1:00:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 12:27:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:01:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:05:55 AM, slo1 wrote:


We need to stop the madness and take a greater isolationist stance, but it can be taken too far.

Do you think Trump will take isolationism too far?

I'm not certain and I don't know that anyone including Trump knows to be honest.

I'm just imagining what could happen should South Korea refuse to pay for US presence at the boarder with NK. Would he pull those troops?
What types of arms would he sell them?

I happen to agree with significantly reducing troops, but believe it needs to be done in conjunction with enabling SK including weapon sales and aid.

South Korea is not a puppet state of the USA. It can fall and have exactly zero consequences for the security of our nation, and most certainly a boost to our economy, as we won't have to supply troops to a country that has zero allegiance to us.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:37:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 1:00:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:27:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:01:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:05:55 AM, slo1 wrote:


We need to stop the madness and take a greater isolationist stance, but it can be taken too far.

Do you think Trump will take isolationism too far?

I'm not certain and I don't know that anyone including Trump knows to be honest.

I'm just imagining what could happen should South Korea refuse to pay for US presence at the boarder with NK. Would he pull those troops?
What types of arms would he sell them?

I happen to agree with significantly reducing troops, but believe it needs to be done in conjunction with enabling SK including weapon sales and aid.

South Korea is not a puppet state of the USA. It can fall and have exactly zero consequences for the security of our nation, and most certainly a boost to our economy, as we won't have to supply troops to a country that has zero allegiance to us.

How does SK failing boost our economy? It is good to have good allies in the world and SK can be a very good at that. A policy of Swiss style neutrality is not so much a good thing when there is target on one's back. It takes time to remove targets. SK it top 3 nations as far as favorable view to US. It makes no sense to toss that away, so I think your zero consequences comment is short sighted.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 10:46:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 7:49:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I found this speech by Ron Paul, which clearly does expose some of the issues with USA's foreign policy despite it being somewhat exaggerated.



"I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!

What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!"


Thoughts on this? Is Ron Paul right about our foreign policy being too aggressive, or should we be more interventionist than we currently are?

Paul's vision is suitable for an older world in which the USA played a different role. But we've long passed into an imperial phase, and our hegemony requires us to be intimately involved in the world stage. We may not be able to go back in time, but we may be able to pull an England and couple the waning of our own influence to a waxing rival's, when the time comes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:28:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 5:37:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 1:00:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:27:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/24/2016 12:01:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:05:55 AM, slo1 wrote:


We need to stop the madness and take a greater isolationist stance, but it can be taken too far.

Do you think Trump will take isolationism too far?

I'm not certain and I don't know that anyone including Trump knows to be honest.

I'm just imagining what could happen should South Korea refuse to pay for US presence at the boarder with NK. Would he pull those troops?
What types of arms would he sell them?

I happen to agree with significantly reducing troops, but believe it needs to be done in conjunction with enabling SK including weapon sales and aid.

South Korea is not a puppet state of the USA. It can fall and have exactly zero consequences for the security of our nation, and most certainly a boost to our economy, as we won't have to supply troops to a country that has zero allegiance to us.

How does SK failing boost our economy? It is good to have good allies in the world and SK can be a very good at that. A policy of Swiss style neutrality is not so much a good thing when there is target on one's back. It takes time to remove targets. SK it top 3 nations as far as favorable view to US. It makes no sense to toss that away, so I think your zero consequences comment is short sighted.

We won't have to supply troops to a country that has zero allegiance to us.....
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:35:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 5:37:30 PM, slo1 wrote:

How does SK failing boost our economy? It is good to have good allies in the world and SK can be a very good at that. A policy of Swiss style neutrality is not so much a good thing when there is target on one's back. It takes time to remove targets. SK it top 3 nations as far as favorable view to US. It makes no sense to toss that away, so I think your zero consequences comment is short sighted.

For 60 years the U.S. has defended the ROK. The "mutual" defense treaty is mutual in name only. Washington defends the South. Seoul does not defend America.

Today the situation is reversed. The White House recently called the alliance "a linchpin of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific." That may be the case for the ROK, but not for America. A new Korean war would have awful economic and humanitarian impacts, but there would be minimal effect on America"s security. A North Korean attack on the ROK would be a North Korean attack on the ROK, not the prelude to global war.

The article goes on to explain that this policy is VERY costly to the USA, and does nothing to encourage South Korea to defend itself. We have created a dependent nation that sits in the basement and eats all our food and does nothing to take care of itself.

Time to kick South Korea out of the basement.

http://www.forbes.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:41:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 12:20:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Russia was the ISIS we created in 1941 when we stuck our fatass where it didn't belong.

That isn't true. In the interwar period Europe was paranoid about a Soviet invasion, perhaps even as scared as they were of Nazi Germany. Hitler tried to justify some of his actions under the pretense of anti-communism. In fact, during the freaking Russian Civil War the Allies of WW1 intervened in Russia to combat the Red Army.
WW2 was just the catalyst for a strong Soviet military and its expansion into Eastern Europe; there's no reason to assume that this would not have eventually happened without WW2, for the Soviets had already spent the 1920s and 1930s undergoing a massive industrialisation program (a must-have for waging a large-scale modern war).

And let's be fair: as bad off as Eastern Europe was under communism, that was a heck of a lot better than being under permanent Nazi occupation.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:45:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 11:41:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And let's be fair: as bad off as Eastern Europe was under communism, that was a heck of a lot better than being under permanent Nazi occupation.

Wouldn't Hitler have genocided against Eastern Europeans eventually because he disliked Slavs and didn't consider them to be "aryan?" Assuming Nazi Germany lived long enough...
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:46:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 7:49:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I found this speech by Ron Paul, which clearly does expose some of the issues with USA's foreign policy despite it being somewhat exaggerated.



"I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?
Or that twisted psychopaths/fundamentalists find an opportunity to exploit on irrational envy and hate against a Western nation

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?
Sometimes you have to support the lesser of two evils

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?
It all has to do with moderation-you can't just ;eave the terrorists there, but at the same time all that carpet bombing does is cause hatred towards us

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
Or maybe it was, if the Obama administration had not pulled out too early

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?
Well, first off waterboarding, while cruel, can sometimes be effective when interrogating terrorists. Other third-world countries take it to a much greater extreme, rape, killings, burnings,lynchings, etc.

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?
WW2?

What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?
I'd like to see the statistics on that one

What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?
Partially true, goverbments tend to pass anti-free speech laws and conscription should be considered unconstitutional

What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?
I would argue that domestic policies, such as social security and healthcare, will and do provide the most opportunities for government expansion

What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
Once again, military intervention does not equate to managing an empire. Sometimes it is necessary to assist our allies and stop expansionist empires (Germany, Iran, Iraq, etc.)

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?
I would not consider WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm "lies"
Invasion of Iraq? Maybe.

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?
Not China. I wouldnt necessarily argue either that America is in a quest for an empire?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?
That is purely speculation. He should not have left that early and kept of foothold, instead he created a vacuum

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?
Once again, even though our foreign policy over that last 16 years has not been beneficial to say the least, countries such as Russia and Iran will always be enemies

What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?
This is starting to get tiring

What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?
Already stated

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?
I think he is confusing the terms "preventive" and "aggression"

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!

What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!"



Thoughts on this? Is Ron Paul right about our foreign policy being too aggressive, or should we be more interventionist than we currently are?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:49:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 11:45:55 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 5/24/2016 11:41:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And let's be fair: as bad off as Eastern Europe was under communism, that was a heck of a lot better than being under permanent Nazi occupation.

Wouldn't Hitler have genocided against Eastern Europeans eventually because he disliked Slavs and didn't consider them to be "aryan?" Assuming Nazi Germany lived long enough...

Correct.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:50:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 11:41:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

And let's be fair: as bad off as Eastern Europe was under communism, that was a heck of a lot better than being under permanent Nazi occupation.

That is debatable because Europe at the time was pretty dysfunctional; however, Germany was never any real military threat to the Nation of the USA.

We did far more harm to Germany than they could ever do to us. They had no plans to invade us. You can spin WWII as the genesis of the WORLD POLICE policy we have today, but saying Americans would all be speaking German if we did not go over there and spill blood was a propaganda hoax. Hell, we started the war with our intervention supplying nations and picking winners and losers. We picked wrong with Russia. and it was costly. We even provoked Japan with an embargo.

The bottom line is: We can't afford to shape the world in our own image anymore. Our debt just won't allow it.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 12:49:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 11:50:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 11:41:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

And let's be fair: as bad off as Eastern Europe was under communism, that was a heck of a lot better than being under permanent Nazi occupation.

That is debatable because Europe at the time was pretty dysfunctional; however, Germany was never any real military threat to the Nation of the USA.

We did far more harm to Germany than they could ever do to us. They had no plans to invade us. You can spin WWII as the genesis of the WORLD POLICE policy we have today, but saying Americans would all be speaking German if we did not go over there and spill blood was a propaganda hoax. Hell, we started the war with our intervention supplying nations and picking winners and losers. We picked wrong with Russia. and it was costly. We even provoked Japan with an embargo.

The bottom line is: We can't afford to shape the world in our own image anymore. Our debt just won't allow it.

Actually, the prevailing idea at the time was that if either Germany or Japan succeeded in conquering the Eurasian continent, they would acquire the manpower and resources to invade the Americas without possibility of successful resistance.
In any case, it certainly benefited the rest of the world, right?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 12:53:23 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's largely the rationale as the one the British had for fighting Napoleon: if he succeeded in conquering Europe, England would not possibly be able to resist that level of resources and manpower.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine, which the United States has abided by since the end of the Cold War, states that the United States shall take a proactive approach to prevent the formation of any state or empire with the level of resources and manpower needed to form a rival superpower which would threaten the United States.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 1:00:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 12:49:31 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/24/2016 11:50:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/24/2016 11:41:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

And let's be fair: as bad off as Eastern Europe was under communism, that was a heck of a lot better than being under permanent Nazi occupation.

That is debatable because Europe at the time was pretty dysfunctional; however, Germany was never any real military threat to the Nation of the USA.

We did far more harm to Germany than they could ever do to us. They had no plans to invade us. You can spin WWII as the genesis of the WORLD POLICE policy we have today, but saying Americans would all be speaking German if we did not go over there and spill blood was a propaganda hoax. Hell, we started the war with our intervention supplying nations and picking winners and losers. We picked wrong with Russia. and it was costly. We even provoked Japan with an embargo.

The bottom line is: We can't afford to shape the world in our own image anymore. Our debt just won't allow it.

Actually, the prevailing idea at the time was that if either Germany or Japan succeeded in conquering the Eurasian continent, they would acquire the manpower and resources to invade the Americas without possibility of successful resistance.
In any case, it certainly benefited the rest of the world, right?

That idea was also a hoax.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 1:02:12 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
This is another reason for the United States to oppose Al-Qaeda: even if they ceased any and all terror attacks against the West, they are a Pan-Islamist organisation. One of their primary aims is the eventual establishment of a global caliphate, and such a country would be powerful enough to pose a very serious threat to the United States.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 1:03:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Whoops: global caliphate is the wrong term. It'd be a caliphate which consisted of the entirety of the Muslim world.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid