Bradley in DC
10-09-2007, 10:30 PM
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_on_ame.html
Ron Paul on American Foreign Policy
Paul lays it out:
If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade...
...A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
But who, Mr. Paul, actually resents us? Are we resented by a child in Fallujah who is able to go to school? A mother in Afghanistan who can cast a vote? An Iranian democrat who sits in jail but knows that at least some people out there are willing help him free his nation? Or is it that we are resented by the tyrants who govern Syria? By the terrorists who rule south Lebanon? By the French businessmen and government officials who used to take bribes from Saddam? There is resentment aplenty in the world - but not all of it, when directed at a person or entity, is dishonorable to the target.
"Engagement" has become, for me, a dirty and sordid word - a word designed to sound pleasant, but which actually masks a monstrous cynicism. It is a word which allows government officials to buddy up to nauseating tyrants; a word which allows businessmen from free nations to profit off the oppressed, low-wage workers in tyrannical States. I won't engage if by engagement I am more securely fastening shackles on my brothers and sisters, or if I am just strengthening the tyrants who wish my nation destroyed.
Paul proposes that you do whatever you please in matters foreign - can you cut a good deal with the Sudanese government for some de-facto slave labor? Then have at it. Will the government of Zimbabwe allow you to build an unsafe chemical plant? Go for it. Chinese government willing to shut out that troublesome competitor in return for a bribe? You'd be fool not to do it. Think you can make some good money organizing "sex tourism" to places like Bangkok, where there are plenty of 13 year old girls for the middle aged sleaze balls you serve? Paul isn't going to stop you - in fact, he'll congratulate you for "engaging" and not passing any invidious judgements on the local customs.
Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer President Bush's moral foreign policy - and, in fact, I'd like to see it exanded and made universal in our foreign and trade policies. Paul wants unhindered free trade? I prefer "freedom trade" - trade and relations with nations which have an affinity with us...free nations which respect the rights of their own people. Why trade with the slaves of China when we can trade with the freemen of India? Why support tyrants when we can support their long-suffering people?
Mr. Paul can keep his libertarianism: I'm not buying it.
Ron Paul on American Foreign Policy
Paul lays it out:
If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade...
...A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.
But who, Mr. Paul, actually resents us? Are we resented by a child in Fallujah who is able to go to school? A mother in Afghanistan who can cast a vote? An Iranian democrat who sits in jail but knows that at least some people out there are willing help him free his nation? Or is it that we are resented by the tyrants who govern Syria? By the terrorists who rule south Lebanon? By the French businessmen and government officials who used to take bribes from Saddam? There is resentment aplenty in the world - but not all of it, when directed at a person or entity, is dishonorable to the target.
"Engagement" has become, for me, a dirty and sordid word - a word designed to sound pleasant, but which actually masks a monstrous cynicism. It is a word which allows government officials to buddy up to nauseating tyrants; a word which allows businessmen from free nations to profit off the oppressed, low-wage workers in tyrannical States. I won't engage if by engagement I am more securely fastening shackles on my brothers and sisters, or if I am just strengthening the tyrants who wish my nation destroyed.
Paul proposes that you do whatever you please in matters foreign - can you cut a good deal with the Sudanese government for some de-facto slave labor? Then have at it. Will the government of Zimbabwe allow you to build an unsafe chemical plant? Go for it. Chinese government willing to shut out that troublesome competitor in return for a bribe? You'd be fool not to do it. Think you can make some good money organizing "sex tourism" to places like Bangkok, where there are plenty of 13 year old girls for the middle aged sleaze balls you serve? Paul isn't going to stop you - in fact, he'll congratulate you for "engaging" and not passing any invidious judgements on the local customs.
Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer President Bush's moral foreign policy - and, in fact, I'd like to see it exanded and made universal in our foreign and trade policies. Paul wants unhindered free trade? I prefer "freedom trade" - trade and relations with nations which have an affinity with us...free nations which respect the rights of their own people. Why trade with the slaves of China when we can trade with the freemen of India? Why support tyrants when we can support their long-suffering people?
Mr. Paul can keep his libertarianism: I'm not buying it.