PDA

View Full Version : Foreign Policy: Questions regarding Paul's stance on military interventionism




Cynanthrope
09-23-2009, 04:01 PM
I've read that Paul opposes most every US military interventionist actions (which I agree with), but what would he have done if he was president during the time that the Rwandan genocide or Darfur genocide?

Would he have just allowed an issued statement of concern regarding the situations in the regions and not interfere at all?

In addition, my cousin has asked me if the US was never attacked by the Japanese or Germans during WWII, would Paul's reaction still be the same? He also asked whether Paul would still do nothing if Japan conquered most of Asia and Germany conquered most of Europe?

torchbearer
09-23-2009, 04:04 PM
I've read that Paul opposes most every US military interventionist actions (which I agree with), but what would he have done if he was president during the time that the Rwandan genocide or Darfur genocide?

Would he have just allowed an issued statement of concern regarding the situations in the regions and not interfere at all?

In addition, my cousin has asked me if the US was never attacked by the Japanese or Germans during WWII, would Paul's reaction still be the same? He also asked whether Paul would still do nothing if Japan conquered most of Asia and Germany conquered most of Europe?

In the spirit of the rough riders, all concerned people can get together and go over there voluntarily and help in anyway they see fit.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
09-23-2009, 04:05 PM
most of these problems are caused by intervention to begin with. Its like looking at the financial crisis and asking "Would RP just sit there and do nothing about all the people losing their homes?" The point is, we wouldnt have these problems if not for the intervention of the past.

MRoCkEd
09-23-2009, 04:06 PM
From BJ Lawson:

The genocide/conflict in Darfur is long-running, with multiple inciting factors. Access to basic resources like food and water is an issue, as are hostilities between Arab and African populations that began back in the 1980s. Given the duration of the conflict, and the fact that the government and militias have been at each others throats for a generation, there is no clear path to resolution through military intervention.

I do not believe that the U.S. military is capable of bringing peace at gunpoint to a region that has been engaged in a bloody civil war over the past twenty years. Furthermore, so-called “peace-keeping” missions handicap our military with rules of engagement that make them vulnerable to insurgent attacks, and limit their effectiveness in protecting the population. There’s a lot of risk, and little reward. Most importantly, I believe we must only put American lives at risk, and put American soldiers in a position of taking others’ lives, if our national security is under imminent threat. Darfur does not meet that criteria.

There is the concept of “Defense of Innocents”, which states that Deadly Force may be used to defend a victim if that victim would be justified in using Deadly Force him or herself. One might make an argument for intervention in Darfur based upon Defense of Innocents, but with such a long-running conflict, would we be able to clearly define an enemy? More importantly, if we intervene militarily and topple the current regime, then what? We’d be into another nation-building effort that we can’t afford, and would seed resentment and future conflict.

So what can we do? I believe free people in a free society can and should do a lot to help Darfur. Here are some thoughts for consideration:

1) Facilitate with diplomacy and by encouraging truly free trade and economic development that benefit the people. I disagree with sanctions, which typically have a perverse outcome. The rulers find a way to get what they need to stay fat and happy, while the sanctions actually hurt the average citizen. Based upon my reading, it sounds like that precise situation is happening in Sudan. China and to some extent Russia are actively trading with Sudan and providing her rulers with military equipment in an effort to secure access to her oil. China and Russia appear happy to ignore the sanctions and perpetuate the government’s abuse, while the sanctions reduce our ability to help.

2) Encourage sponsored immigration of victims from Sudan to the U.S. and other free countries. I am inspired by people like John Dau, who illustrates that committed individuals who have the opportunity to come to our country can then return with additional resources to make a meaningful difference. Our family has had a similar experience with a missionary we work with in Zimbabwe. Like John, our missionary friend Jonathan Daniels is actually from Zimbabwe, was adopted off the streets of Harare and raised by missionaries, and given the opportunity to live and study in the United States. Also like John, our friend now runs a mission in Zimbabwe that is well-organized, fully accountable, and entirely focused on helping the people. Natives of a country are usually more effective at seeding and advancing social change. Foreign diplomats and other outsiders can assist, but natives are typically essential to build broad coalitions. We need more John Daus, and Jonathan Daniels.

3) Get our own house in order with respect to human rights and civil liberties. We need a government that has the moral authority to build consensus in the international community so that all nations (including China and Russia) can put aside their competing needs for natural resources to help orchestrate change through diplomatic means. Such diplomacy should not be simply subsidizing or “buying off” corrupt regimes. It must be a dialog focused on addressing the root causes of the conflict, in this case both ethnic tensions as well as access to basic necessities like food and water. There is no easy answer for the food and water question, however, since desertification and drought have caused significant hardship and conflict. But free people in a free society should be able to work for positive change, without military intervention.

4) Finally, we need to stop the government’s mindless subsidization of our petroleum economy. Oil causes more pain and hardship around the world than most people realize, and Asia’s rapid growth is putting increasing pressure on limited global oil supplies. Yet we still think we can use our taxpayer and military to “secure oil supplies”, even though we’re borrowing money and debasing our currency to the point that our military expenditures are actually making the price of oil go up! Is burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine that’s essentially unchanged for 100 years the best we can do? I refuse to believe so, especially since I can walk around with a telephone that fits in my shirt pocket.

If one was cynical, one could argue that we’ve not intervened in Sudan because China is already colonizing Sudan for oil. With China and Russia providing military gear to the Sudanese government, and with China’s oil companies already deeply involved in Sudan’s energy economy, Sudan could be a flash point for a military conflict between the U.S., China, and Russia that no one would like. We need to not need so much oil!

amy31416
09-23-2009, 04:11 PM
This quote seems appropriate, and while not from Ron Paul, should be right up his alley:


Quite simply, there is no moral dimension to our Afghan War other than to protect the United States and the American people. That moral obligation was ignored by Bush and is detested by Obama, being Harvard educated and the good student of Rev. Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers. Those who believe we should, in Afghanistan, be creating a democracy, rebuilding the economy, providing women's rights, and protecting human rights are, I am sure, good people in their own way and minds. But they are, to a monstrous extent, selfish, unrealistic, and patently unconcerned with America's security. If they really want to ensure that all of the things just listed come to pass, they ought to join an NGO, become a religious missionary, or join the Afghan army. Such people are at all times entitled to waste their lives in any manner they choose. They are not ever, however, entitled to spend the lives of America's soldier-children in anything other than America's defense. No U.S. soldier or Marine should ever be called on to be maimed or killed to make sure Mrs. Muhammad can vote or little Ibrahim can go to a secular school; they should be called on to make such sacrifices only in an effort to decisively defeat America's enemies on the battlefield or to defend its borders. In other words, if Mrs. Clinton wants to install women's rights in Afghanistan; and if Senator McCain wants to become involved in the civil war in Darfur; and if most members of the Congress want to do everything possible to defend Israel, let them all resign their official positions and go and take up their "sacred" causes as private citizens following their personal beliefs. They would all be likely to get their butts shot off, and America would be no poorer for their loss. Indeed, all Americans would be better off because we would stop intervening in other peoples' wars and we would preserve the lives of our soldier-children for the few occasions where the application of overwhelming military power is necessary to defend America. Our moral obligation in Afghanistan is framed solely by the requirement laid down by the Founders: America first.



--Michael Scheurer

Bruno
09-23-2009, 04:19 PM
Is the OP coming back, or just starting new threads as a new member to question Paul's stance by asking us how he would handle things?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211553

Danke
01-12-2010, 01:22 AM
bump

LittleLightShining
01-12-2010, 03:54 AM
Is the OP coming back, or just starting new threads as a new member to question Paul's stance by asking us how he would handle things?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211553

I don't think it matters. It's good to brush up on the basics. Good thread here.