Lotta people never think about what it would be like if it happened to them. Heres something to think about. This common sense is hurting my head. Its things like this that make me despise our foreign policy. Its worsens our national security by getting more people mad at the us and it hurts our balance sheet.
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.
Posted by Ron Paul (10-05-2009, 12:13 PM) filed under Foreign Policy
This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on Club Lexus!
__________________
06 IS350 Crystal White/Black + Sport + Mark Levinson
Yeah, the U.S. is pretty good at imposing themselves and in the same thought process getting a lot of people mad at them. There are a lot of things I find, that the U.S. finds 'okay' to do, but in the same sense wouldn't find it okay if it wasn't them doing it.
One fairly good example of this is that during the Cold War, in an event known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia had put missile platforms on Cuban soil, aimed at the U.S. In Europe, though, the U.S. had missile platforms in Turkey aimed at Russia. While it was okay for them to have nuclear warheads aimed at Russia, it somehow wasn't all right for Russia to return the favor by aiming missiles at them at close range. Explain the logic here?
While it was okay for the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan at the turn of the millenia, it wasn't okay, by U.S. standards, for Russia to intervene militarily in the South Ossetia conflict to defend their interests. Explain the logic here?
While it is okay for the U.S. to massively stockpile nuclear weapons and whatnot, everyone else has to give up theirs. Where's the logic in this? Why isn't Iran entitled to nuclear arms development, but the U.S. is?
The U.S. has a lot of double-standards like these. While it's okay for them to do something, the same isn't necessarily true if anyone else in the world does it. That pisses me off. When they impose new trade standards or regulations and other nations counter by doing the exact same thing, the U.S. gets all pissy. It's like all these Canadians going to the U.S. to spend some money over the weekend having a hard time getting across the border because of stricter regulations, but somehow it isn't okay for the Canadian government to be more strict about who gets across its border. The U.S. *****ed and moaned when Canada decided to arm its border guards... but somehow it was okay for the American guards to be armed to the teeth, short of auto-cannons popping out of the ground and shooting at anyone that jumps the border?
George W Bush once said that " the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. They hate us because we are free". No its because we support Isreal and impose our beliefs and desires around the world. This country needs to open its eyes to how much the rest of the world has lost respect for us and even hopes that the US falls
__________________
2007 GS350/Tein CST with EDFC/Lexus F Sport intake and sway bars/TSW Snetterton wheels/Lexus OEM ipod adapter/3M tint FEATURES:
Readers Rides of the month Modified Magazine December 2009
Readers Rides Super Street Magazine June 2010
George W Bush once said that " the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. They hate us because we are free". No its because we support Isreal and impose our beliefs and desires around the world. This country needs to open its eyes to how much the rest of the world has lost respect for us and even hopes that the US falls
that ayatollah guy tried to recruit terrorists on the platform that freedom is bad, was a total failure. They dont care for our liberties and freedom they just want to be left alone. Need to obey the Constitution, leave and defend the homeland.
__________________
06 IS350 Crystal White/Black + Sport + Mark Levinson
George W Bush once said that " the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. They hate us because we are free". No its because we support Isreal and impose our beliefs and desires around the world. This country needs to open its eyes to how much the rest of the world has lost respect for us and even hopes that the US falls
Couldn't have said it better myself . I'm tired of us being the world's policeman and always trying to stay involved in other country's business but someone will come in this thread and justify a reason why we have to .
Couldn't have said it better myself . I'm tired of us being the world's policeman and always trying to stay involved in other country's business but someone will come in this thread and justify a reason why we have to .
I would have voted for Ron Paul if he ran.
I wrote his name in, no way Im going to use a vote on McCain or Barry
__________________
06 IS350 Crystal White/Black + Sport + Mark Levinson
Couldn't have said it better myself . I'm tired of us being the world's policeman and always trying to stay involved in other country's business but someone will come in this thread and justify a reason why we have to .
I would have voted for Ron Paul if he ran.
I don't think anyone can justify how petty of a pit boss the U.S. has been in world politics since, hell, its creation. The U.S. always claims to be responsible for any major victory and while they played a big part in the outcome of World War II, as far as I know it was the Red Army which raised the Soviet flag above the Reichstag and stormed the Fuhrerbunker. The Soviets were already advancing further into Germany prior to Normandy.
The US is kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If we help people they say we're choosing sides. If we don't help people they say we're being isolationists. Everyone hates us until they need money or something else.
__________________
'07 IS350, Tungsten/Black Lux/Nav/ML
Aerotect Clear Bra/Redouts/Blue Fog Overlays
The US is kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If we help people they say we're choosing sides. If we don't help people they say we're being isolationists. Everyone hates us until they need money or something else.
Maybe that's why the U.S. owes a lot of money to Japan, China, the U.K. and major oil exporting countries. Everyone hates the U.S. because they act like they own the world. Your eardrums would burst if you ever even sat down at a political debate club in a foreign country.
Where the U.S. should help (Darfur, Rwanda) by sending lots of troops, it doesn't. Where it shouldn't (Afghanistan, Iraq), it does. The U.S. almost always does the wrong thing in any given situation, and sometimes it can be costly (Vietnam).
Like I said the US can do no right. No matter what we do someone will bish about it. What I'd like to see is for the US to support the things they're already involved in (Mid East stuff) but keep the rest of the funds they would normally give away and use it to pay off some of its own debt.
__________________
'07 IS350, Tungsten/Black Lux/Nav/ML
Aerotect Clear Bra/Redouts/Blue Fog Overlays
The US is kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If we help people they say we're choosing sides. If we don't help people they say we're being isolationists. Everyone hates us until they need money or something else.
George Washington said stay out of peoples business (other countries). We followed this pretty much for 100 years and after the Spanish American War and then WWI, well...the powers at be very much LOVE to be everywhere meddling everywhere. Sometimes it is understandable and sometimes its a major "WTF".
Then imagine we don't know half the meddling that goes on. The few in power over decades as put their interests and special interest groups first, not Americans.
__________________
TLN-GoatfatherThank you AsianGirl007
"One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that if you drive into London at 6am, half of the cars on the roads are Porsches and Astons. Whereas if you go in at ten to nine, they’re all Renaults. Simple solution, then. You want a nice car? Get up earlier and do more work." -- Jeremy Clarkson
George Washington said stay out of peoples business (other countries). We followed this pretty much for 100 years and after the Spanish American War and then WWI, well...the powers at be very much LOVE to be everywhere meddling everywhere. Sometimes it is understandable and sometimes its a major "WTF".
Then imagine we don't know half the meddling that goes on. The few in power over decades as put their interests and special interest groups first, not Americans.
Woodrow Wilson started it all by meddling in WW1, that was Europe's war not our war. WW2 was different since we were attacked first.
I think Ron Paul estimated we could save 1T a year by shutting down all these foreign military bases and wars
__________________
06 IS350 Crystal White/Black + Sport + Mark Levinson
Yeah, the U.S. is pretty good at imposing themselves and in the same thought process getting a lot of people mad at them. There are a lot of things I find, that the U.S. finds 'okay' to do, but in the same sense wouldn't find it okay if it wasn't them doing it.
I don't disagree with you on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisforFast
One fairly good example of this is that during the Cold War, in an event known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia had put missile platforms on Cuban soil, aimed at the U.S. In Europe, though, the U.S. had missile platforms in Turkey aimed at Russia. While it was okay for them to have nuclear warheads aimed at Russia, it somehow wasn't all right for Russia to return the favor by aiming missiles at them at close range. Explain the logic here?
Cuba = run by a dictator who was under Russia's thumb by getting into bed with them, while no Russian soldiers were controlling the missiles. Turkey = a country that has a somewhat stable government and would not control the nuclear warheads, which were under the control of the U.S. Air Force. That's a vast difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisforFast
While it was okay for the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan at the turn of the millenia, it wasn't okay, by U.S. standards, for Russia to intervene militarily in the South Ossetia conflict to defend their interests. Explain the logic here?
First off, it wasn't at the turn of the millenium, as 9/11 didn't happen until 2001, and we did not move toward war with both until early 2002. Second, the invasion was based on an invasion of our country, and was supposed to be to find weapons of mass destruction. True enough that they were never found, never existed, and it's a complete waste of our resources, but Georgia did not invade or attack Russia, nor was there terrorism involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisforFast
While it is okay for the U.S. to massively stockpile nuclear weapons and whatnot, everyone else has to give up theirs. Where's the logic in this? Why isn't Iran entitled to nuclear arms development, but the U.S. is?
The U.S. is not alone in condemning Iran having nuclear arms. The United Nations does not condone it, and has many resolutions against it. The reason the United States has nuclear weapons and is allowed proliferation is due to the treaties that have been signed, and the fact that the government here is stable. Can the same be said for Iran? You don't believe that for a nanosecond, and neither do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisforFast
The U.S. has a lot of double-standards like these. While it's okay for them to do something, the same isn't necessarily true if anyone else in the world does it. That pisses me off. When they impose new trade standards or regulations and other nations counter by doing the exact same thing, the U.S. gets all pissy.
The reason the U.S. typically changes trade standards is due to unfair trade practices. This is not all the time, but it is the case many times. Imagine the idea that products get dumped into the U.S. market by China, India, Taiwan, Bangladesh, and a host of other countries that are trying to gain traction in the manufacturing space. Is it fair for them to make cheap copies of products, ignore patents, ignore quality standards, or simply ship the products at a loss to drive a competitor out of business and destroy their market? No, it's not. How do you stop that from happening? By doing what the U.S. does many times. Is it always that cut an dried? Of course not, but that's what usually drives it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisforFast
It's like all these Canadians going to the U.S. to spend some money over the weekend having a hard time getting across the border because of stricter regulations, but somehow it isn't okay for the Canadian government to be more strict about who gets across its border. The U.S. *****ed and moaned when Canada decided to arm its border guards... but somehow it was okay for the American guards to be armed to the teeth, short of auto-cannons popping out of the ground and shooting at anyone that jumps the border?
Any proof on this? I did a bit of research and couldn't find ONE story where the U.S. indicated a concern about Canada arming the guards. I did see that some of the Indian tribes were concerned, but nothing about the U.S. And having crossed over into Canadia numerous times when I lived near the border, I never saw guards "armed to the teeth." Granted, it's been a while, but I can't imagine they are sitting there with M-16's like the Israeli's who guard the airport. Even airport police in the U.S. don't carry assault weapons like that!
I will wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that the U.S. needs to stop being the police of the world and let some of these countries work out their deals on their own terms, or allow them to annihilate one another. I'd certainly not look forward to that, but diplomacy has grown over the past 60 years that the U.N. has been working, and perhaps it's time to adjust U.S. foreign policy to reflect it. I'm sure that we'd get some grief for it on a certain level, but we need to adapt to a changing world.
Big Mack
__________________
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
To my fallen brethren, you are not forgotten. To the usurpers of freedom, you are not forgiven.
First off, it wasn't at the turn of the millenium, as 9/11 didn't happen until 2001, and we did not move toward war with both until early 2002. Second, the invasion was based on an invasion of our country, and was supposed to be to find weapons of mass destruction. True enough that they were never found, never existed, and it's a complete waste of our resources, but Georgia did not invade or attack Russia, nor was there terrorism involved.
Big Mack
I will simply comment on this point because I don't want to get into an argument on the forums, in a language that isn't mine, really. First off, 2001 is close enough to 2000 to be considered the turn of the millenium. Secondly, Russia got involved because there were a good number of Russian passport holders in South Ossetia and Abkhazia (or whatever that other region is), which is completely legitimate.
When the shoe is on the other foot
. I'm tired of us being the world's policeman and always trying to stay involved in other country's business 
but someone will come in this thread and justify a reason why we have to 
.
Linear Mode
