sailingaway
10-02-2012, 09:24 AM
My generation has known nothing but war.
We’ve grown up expecting to see updated body counts in the newspapers every day for over a decade. Who was killed today? Where was he from? Declaring war and committing troops to faraway places has become part of the president’s job description, it seems.
It wasn’t always this way. But lately, how much has U.S. foreign policy really changed from one administration to the next?
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would like you to think that this election is pivotal in shaping the future of America. Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, it’s hard to distinguish between the two candidates. And they both have it wrong.
A lot of statistics have been thrown around this campaign season: Romney’s “47 percent,” Occupy Wall Street’s “99 percent,” unemployment above eight percent. But the most important number – which no one is talking about – is that 6500 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. 6500.
Each U.S. casualty is not just another stat like GDP or unemployment – it is an unquantifiable instance of immense human suffering. It is a ruined home, a family destroyed, a father or daughter lost.
Therefore, if given a choice between a president who would instantly end this annual massacre of thousands of humans versus a president who might be able to raise GDP by three percent in eight years, who would you choose? Yes, the economy and health care are important issues, but voters’ highest priority should be ending these lethal, costly and unwinnable wars. What could possibly be more important?
Ron Paul was the only serious presidential candidate in recent memory who understood that these war-mongering tendencies could spell doom for the American empire. Dr. Paul understood that U.S. foreign policy since World War II has been tragically flawed, and that misguided interventionism is the greatest incentive to expand the already bloated federal government (almost $1400 billion of taxpayer money has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan).
What if the U.S. had used that money not to kill, but to improve the human race in some way? What if our government spent as much time teaching citizens about geography, history, communication and diplomacy as we currently spend training soldiers how to slaughter other humans?
Ron Paul understood that terrorism is largely a result of the U.S.’s repeated over-extension in the Middle East. Terrorists don’t attack us because we are free and rich and Christian, but because we routinely set off bombs in their backyards and kill their family members. Even soldiers recognized this: earlier in the campaign, Paul outstripped all Republican candidates combined in donations from active duty personnel.
more at link: http://cw.ua.edu/2012/10/02/write-in-republican-candidate-ron-paul-write-off-more-war/
We’ve grown up expecting to see updated body counts in the newspapers every day for over a decade. Who was killed today? Where was he from? Declaring war and committing troops to faraway places has become part of the president’s job description, it seems.
It wasn’t always this way. But lately, how much has U.S. foreign policy really changed from one administration to the next?
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would like you to think that this election is pivotal in shaping the future of America. Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, it’s hard to distinguish between the two candidates. And they both have it wrong.
A lot of statistics have been thrown around this campaign season: Romney’s “47 percent,” Occupy Wall Street’s “99 percent,” unemployment above eight percent. But the most important number – which no one is talking about – is that 6500 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. 6500.
Each U.S. casualty is not just another stat like GDP or unemployment – it is an unquantifiable instance of immense human suffering. It is a ruined home, a family destroyed, a father or daughter lost.
Therefore, if given a choice between a president who would instantly end this annual massacre of thousands of humans versus a president who might be able to raise GDP by three percent in eight years, who would you choose? Yes, the economy and health care are important issues, but voters’ highest priority should be ending these lethal, costly and unwinnable wars. What could possibly be more important?
Ron Paul was the only serious presidential candidate in recent memory who understood that these war-mongering tendencies could spell doom for the American empire. Dr. Paul understood that U.S. foreign policy since World War II has been tragically flawed, and that misguided interventionism is the greatest incentive to expand the already bloated federal government (almost $1400 billion of taxpayer money has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan).
What if the U.S. had used that money not to kill, but to improve the human race in some way? What if our government spent as much time teaching citizens about geography, history, communication and diplomacy as we currently spend training soldiers how to slaughter other humans?
Ron Paul understood that terrorism is largely a result of the U.S.’s repeated over-extension in the Middle East. Terrorists don’t attack us because we are free and rich and Christian, but because we routinely set off bombs in their backyards and kill their family members. Even soldiers recognized this: earlier in the campaign, Paul outstripped all Republican candidates combined in donations from active duty personnel.
more at link: http://cw.ua.edu/2012/10/02/write-in-republican-candidate-ron-paul-write-off-more-war/