Ron Paul has op-ed piece in Washington Times:

[Matt Collins]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/fight-them-over-there-vs-over-here-presents-a-fals/?feat=home_columns

[ladyjade3]

thats a good one!

[Danke]

The Washington Times
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice


There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.

We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.

4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.

Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.

The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.

[Original_Intent]

There is the true "Common Sense 2.0". Once again, Dr. Paul has the right medicine.

[Feenix566]

Thanks for posting this!

[Umbro2914]

fantastic!

[iddo]

awesome op-ed... no way it would have been published while Bush was president.

[Immortal Technique]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/fight-them-over-there-vs-over-here-presents-a-fals/?feat=home_columns

YouTube - New Ron Paul Washington Times Op Ed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKuNfZ9i6kc)

[Reason]

awesome

[Reason]

(My Email)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO: <circulation@washingtontimes.com>

SUBJECT: Thank You! -Please Forward This-

I just wanted to thank you for publishing this opinion article,

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/fight-them-over-there-vs-over-here-presents-a-fals/?feat=home_columns

Calm, logical analysis of complicated situations is always appreciated.

Your publishing of this opinion article shows main stream media has not yet lost complete journalistic integrity.

Please forward this email to whoever you feel may be in a position to accept my appreciation.

Thank You!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AuH20]

If you have an account, go raise hell over there. ;)

http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=44553

[devil21]

Was this in the print edition or just online?

[kahless]

If you have an account, go raise hell over there. ;)

http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=44553

I feel ill and rage at the same time after reading over there. Sadly it seems the beliefs posted are all too common particularly with Republicans. I find it amazing that some people I know some how consider me on the liberal left and that I must support Obama simply because I hold the same beliefs stated in Rons OP ed.

It is really a tough road getting people out thinking in terms of right or left, Republican or Democrat. That link is a perfect example of this complete and utter ignorance of Michelle Malkin and her neocon ilk.

[devil21]

I feel ill and rage at the same time after reading over there. Sadly it seems the beliefs posted are all too common particularly with Republicans. I find it amazing that some people I know some how consider me on the liberal left and that I must support Obama simply because I hold the same beliefs stated in Rons OP ed.

It is really a tough road getting people out thinking in terms of right or left, Republican or Democrat. That link is a perfect example of this complete and utter ignorance of Michelle Malkin and her neocon ilk.

What's funny is that those same people still haven't figured out that Obama isn't doing anything at all different than GWB did. Liberals aren't following non-intervention. So how does non-intervention make one a liberal?

[specsaregood]

If you have an account, go raise hell over there. ;)

http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=44553

Why bother? Unless one likes wrestling with pigs. I need a few dozen more drinks in me before that starts to sound like fun.

[klamath]

The Washington Times
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice


There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.

We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.

4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.

Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.

The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.
It keeps reminding me why I voted RP. I have a hard time agreeing with a politician more.

[AuH20]

Why bother? Unless one likes wrestling with pigs. I need a few dozen more drinks in me before that starts to sound like fun.

I'm having my fun with them at the moment. I think they're starting to realize that I'm not a pinko leftie and it's infuriating them even more.

[Lord Xar]

After reading many of those posts, it is fairly obvious that the Neo-Cons have totally capitulated the republican belief system. I am amazed at "their own" kool-aid'ness. It is a very strange world when people validate world empires while promoting republicanism. I am starting to think that neo-conic republicans are truly stupid. Just the leftists who blindly follow the obama doctrine, so too - these bird-brains. I just don't get it. The terrorism propaganda has certainly solidified itself within the republican ranks. So much so, they will destroy themselves against the very wall which they are.. neo-libs.

[kahless]

What's funny is that those same people still haven't figured out that Obama isn't doing anything at all different than GWB did. Liberals aren't following non-intervention. So how does non-intervention make one a liberal?

Ignorance. It is what got Obama elected and will also continue to win elections for them because of perception and ignorance. No matter what they do Hollywood, the MSM and the voter will still believe they are non-interventionists.

It is so bad with the average voter in this country it is likely the only thing that will get a Ron Paul type elected is if he is young and a beloved major Hollywood actor.

[AuH20]

After reading many of those posts, it is fairly obvious that the Neo-Cons have totally capitulated the republican belief system. I am amazed at "their own" kool-aid'ness. It is a very strange world when people validate world empires while promoting republicanism. I am starting to think that neo-conic republicans are truly stupid. Just the leftists who blindly follow the obama doctrine, so too - these bird-brains. I just don't get it. The terrorism propaganda has certainly solidified itself within the republican ranks. So much so, they will destroy themselves against the very wall which they are.. neo-libs.

9/11 really turned the republicans to another plateau of zaniness. Until they see through the exagerrated threat, they will continue to be stubborn.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Kind of wondering if this was written because of me... I sent him the first post here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=198061

and he is touching on 6 or 7 things I brought up...

I'd like to think so! - Great OP piece Paul!

-t

[Objectivist]

You're the MAN Mr. Collins, thanks for posting the good words from Dr. Paul.
I completely agree that it is not the place of our nation to build other countries but to support those with similar aspirations via trade.

Can someone ask why we're in Afghanistan?

[Cowlesy]

It keeps reminding me why I voted RP. I have a hard time agreeing with a politician more.

^^This.

We either begin to follow Ron Paul's advice, or the terrorists will win eventually.

[Objectivist]

Did anyone send copy to Mr. Steele at GOP?

[Matt Collins]

You're the MAN Mr. CollinsYou should see this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197917