Need help on counter argument!

[CurtisLow]

I'm not up on all Ron Paul's policy's could someone counter don1 on this page.

Thanks!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jessica__070706_consider_ron_paul_fo.htm#st artcomments

[angrydragon]

Well I can't help, I don't know much history.

But he's just speculating in the first two paragraphs, there is no way to know if Soviet Union communism would have spread everywhere. What does he mean by neo-isolationist? This was the position of the founding fathers, commerce with all nations, entanglements (in politics) with none.

[Spirit of '76]

Man, registering and posting on that site is a pain in the rear... :)

[Oddball]

He's quite effectively refuted with the next comment.

I wouldn't sweat it too much.

[Kuldebar]

Well, I'm not going to register over there just to tell a guy he's full of crap...


U.S. Can Ill Afford Ron Paul's Neo-Isolationism

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul would merely shift the nation from one foreign policy extreme to another. His Neo-isolationist philosophy would lead to a wholesale abandonment of the nation's critical overseas interests. Rather than reducing the nation's geopolitical risk exposure, such an approach would increase it. The years leading up to World War II offer powerful evidence of the inherent shortcomings of such a posture.

During the height of the Cold War, Ron Paul was advocating unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament and a withdrawal from NATO. Had the U.S. eliminated its nuclear weapons, it would have been left at the mercy of a Soviet Union that, at the time, enjoyed a superior conventional capacity and a powerful nuclear arsenal. The U.S. deterrent would simply have ceased to exist. Had the U.S. withdrawn from NATO, the door would have been opened for a westward advance of the Soviet empire. All said, the Cold War might well have come to a very bad conclusion if the Soviets exploited the self-inflicted disarmament that Mr. Paul espoused.

As the U.S. moves into the 2008 campaign season, big foreign policy challenges lurk. Radical Islamist terrorism, which is not just a simple consequence of "blowback" but also an ideology based on perceptions of history that predate the U.S. founding, presents dangers to the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. will need to rebuild its relationship with Russia if it is to avoid complications that could arise from Russian "counterbalancing." It will need to ensure that Iran cannot dominate the vital oil-producing regions of the Middle East. It will need to cooperate with China so that China's continuing evolution will be peaceful and East Asia could remain a stable and prosperous region. It may need to lend covert or even overt support to Pakistan's government. If Pakistan's government were to fall to radical pro-Taliban elements, the adverse ramifications of that development would likely be as significant as those following the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Active diplomacy and robust engagement will be required to bring about a good outcome on all these fronts. Military strength will be an important deterrent.

Given the nature and magnitude of the challenges confronting it, the U.S. can ill-afford to compensate for the excesses of Neoconservatism by embracing the hazards of Neo-isolationism. Such an outcome would undermine critical U.S. interests and national security.

by don1 (0 articles, 1 comments) on Saturday, July 7, 2007 at


No, Ron Paul did not advocate unilateral disarmament during the cold war. While he questioned the need for prolonging and escalating the nuclear arms race, he wasn't living in fantasy land when it came to a strong national defense. He was opposed to brinksmanship, as he is today...constant interventions and covert wars.

Additionally, the label neo-isolationist doesn't fit Paul. An isolationist doesn't believe in a free, principled and open relationship with the world as Ron Paul advocates.

It's not that hard to explain: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far". ...to possibly over simplify things.

[Bryan]

Had the U.S. withdrawn from NATO, the door would have been opened for a westward advance of the Soviet empire.
Sorry I'm not going to post there (after Spirits comment :)) but the author makes this claim with seemingly zero supporting evidence- and it doesn't make much sense to begin with, that just because whether or not our government leaders sign some piece of paper that it would effect military operations of the Soviets. We can be just as strong against aggression with or without a piece of paper and entangling alliances.