Patriot123
11-03-2011, 03:26 PM
So admittedly, I wasn't expecting to hear this when I asked him. He's my Russian History professor, and we just got done with the period surrounding Alexander I and the Crimean War. We discussed how Nicholas I (or his successor? Well, I'm going to fail this exam...) fought a war with the British and the Ottomans over territory. He died, and was succeeded by, I believe, Alexander I. At this point, Russia was having its ass handed to it. But it was also becoming a statelemate, like Iraq or Vietnam was for us. And Nicholas was just continuing to fight the damn thing like a Vietnam, or Iraq -- just for the sake of not losing. So Alexander decides that's stupid -- that wars are never ending. That they have defined purposes, but that's it. Fighting continuous wars for the sake of just not losing honor is stupid. So he let the British win a battle, and then pressed for peace. This professor states every so often, too, how nations somehow think empires are "permanent" -- that they're not. That all empires fall, and it's just plain stupid to think you can amass large amounts of land and control over the world and be able to sustain it forever. And he more recently stated that world leaders never learn from history; I found that one pretty funny, honestly. But I became curious :D So after class, I went up to him.
"Hey, so are you following the GOP race at all?" He said of course. I very politely asked him his opinion of Ron Paul, particularly his foreign policy stance, and especially when taking into account Russian history. His response shocked me, especially considering that I have had history teachers in high school repeat again and again that the US has interests worth protecting abroad, and that giving up on them is just stupid. His response was that Ron Paul is the only candidate with half a brain in the race when it comes to foreign policy. And that 'the elites in this country damn well know what prompted the 9/11 attacks' -- ie our involvement abroad. Blowback. From there it went downhill, though :) I asked him what he thought about his monetary and social stances. He said how he and Ron Paul are at different ends of the political spectrum, and how never in history has a society basically deregulated and de-taxed its wealthy class, and subsequently had prosperity -- that the wealthy always cling to their wealth. I mean, I can kind of see where he's coming from -- with Russian history being pretty much like that with its Nobles class.
Either way, though, hearing this from a professor of history/international studies is... something I'll never forget, quite honestly. Even myself, I never was quite too sure of Paul's stance on foreign policy. I was reluctantly for it, always questioning myself -- "are we seriously supposed to just withdraw ourselves militarily from the rest of the world?" I have a bit more confidence in my opinion, now :)
"Hey, so are you following the GOP race at all?" He said of course. I very politely asked him his opinion of Ron Paul, particularly his foreign policy stance, and especially when taking into account Russian history. His response shocked me, especially considering that I have had history teachers in high school repeat again and again that the US has interests worth protecting abroad, and that giving up on them is just stupid. His response was that Ron Paul is the only candidate with half a brain in the race when it comes to foreign policy. And that 'the elites in this country damn well know what prompted the 9/11 attacks' -- ie our involvement abroad. Blowback. From there it went downhill, though :) I asked him what he thought about his monetary and social stances. He said how he and Ron Paul are at different ends of the political spectrum, and how never in history has a society basically deregulated and de-taxed its wealthy class, and subsequently had prosperity -- that the wealthy always cling to their wealth. I mean, I can kind of see where he's coming from -- with Russian history being pretty much like that with its Nobles class.
Either way, though, hearing this from a professor of history/international studies is... something I'll never forget, quite honestly. Even myself, I never was quite too sure of Paul's stance on foreign policy. I was reluctantly for it, always questioning myself -- "are we seriously supposed to just withdraw ourselves militarily from the rest of the world?" I have a bit more confidence in my opinion, now :)