Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The U.S. finally gets a foreign policy agenda - from Rand Paul

  1. #1

    The U.S. finally gets a foreign policy agenda - from Rand Paul

    The U.S. finally gets a foreign policy agenda—from Rand Paul
    Merill Matthews - September 19, 2014

    After five years in the White House, President Obama’s only foreign policy principle seems to hinge on whether taking some action (or inaction) will help or hurt Democrats’ chances in the upcoming election.

    Senator Rand Paul has tried to counter this confusion by delivering a speech on the Senate floor focusing on the current mess in the Middle East—a mess he believes is largely of our own making—and outlined at least five important principles that should guide U.S. foreign policy decisions.

    1. Well-intended interventionism has unintended consequences
    ...
    2. The U.S. should only go to war when vital U.S. interests are attacked or threatened
    ...
    3. The burden of proof that U.S. interests are at stake is on the pro-war advocates
    ...
    4. When America goes to war it should only be to win—and win quickly and decisively
    ...
    5. A president needs to get congressional support before sending troops to fight
    ...
    At least now Paul has outlined some foreign policy principles that could serve as a starting point for the presidential debates that will begin next year.
    ...
    More:
    http://rare.us/story/the-u-s-finally...rom-rand-paul/
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    So let us talk ISIS. It has threatened to attack Americans. Question is, has it threatened to attack the mainland or only our occupying troops? Does it matter? If it does, what if they did threaten, obviously and directly, no propaganda from the Fedgov involved, threaten to attack US soil/ Would that be enough to justify attacking them? I would say yes if they were another nation state. Nation states, even the weakest, usually have the means to deliver on such a threat. But not all of these terrorists groups do, they have problem appealing to people outside their regions because of the forces that create terrorism operate (read Dr. Pape's "Dying To Win" to learn more about the strategic logic of suicide terrorism and violence) and may not be a credible threat. But is that threat enough to justify an attack or should actual operational effectiveness be taken into consideration?

  4. #3
    These "foreign policy principles" have been around since our Founding and it's only now that the media is paying them any attention.

    *Facepalm*

    D'OH.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    So let us talk ISIS. It has threatened to attack Americans. Question is, has it threatened to attack the mainland or only our occupying troops? Does it matter? If it does, what if they did threaten, obviously and directly, no propaganda from the Fedgov involved, threaten to attack US soil/ Would that be enough to justify attacking them? I would say yes if they were another nation state. Nation states, even the weakest, usually have the means to deliver on such a threat. But not all of these terrorists groups do, they have problem appealing to people outside their regions because of the forces that create terrorism operate (read Dr. Pape's "Dying To Win" to learn more about the strategic logic of suicide terrorism and violence) and may not be a credible threat. But is that threat enough to justify an attack or should actual operational effectiveness be taken into consideration?

    I've seen threats on both Americans overseas and here in the US.

    Military attack? Laughable. Terrorist attack, they have a lot of cash and fighters with western passports, so plausible.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    I've seen threats on both Americans overseas and here in the US.

    Military attack? Laughable. Terrorist attack, they have a lot of cash and fighters with western passports, so plausible.
    Are they going to Conquer America with terrorist attacks?
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    Are they going to Conquer America with terrorist attacks?
    That's pretty much what they say when they try to rally their own troops- that's where the whole flag over the White House thing came from. It appears to be rhetoric, but they have shown they are willing to kill Americans, given the chance.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    Are they going to Conquer America with terrorist attacks?
    Obviously not. But they could kill a lot of Americans.

    More importantly if they do successfully pull off a large scale 9/11 type of attack, they will draw the US into another invasion of Iraq nation building debacle. We can't possibly afford that without WW2 level sacrifices, it could bankrupt the country. So maybe finishing off Obama's small intervention now would be preferable to a large one later. I don't know. It would have been best to no get involved and not intervene at all.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Obviously not. But they could kill a lot of Americans.
    Define "a lot".

    Police kill a lot of Americans.
    Cars kill a lot of Americans.
    Doctors kill a lot of Americans.

    "terrorists" kill very few Americans.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Good thing we are militarizing our police to combat any domestic terrurism.



Similar Threads

  1. Ron Paul challenges GOP’s foreign policy agenda
    By lx43 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 11:03 PM
  2. Ron Paul challenges GOP’s foreign policy agenda
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 04:09 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 06:26 PM
  4. Democrat's Foreign Policy Agenda!!
    By RPfan in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 01:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •