- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,185
- Reaction score
- 14,274
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.
And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.
I do miss the days of neo-con argumentum ad populum. So we send over 4,000 of our young men and women to die for a lie? Quality foreign policy :thumbs: All the while taxpayers foot the $1 trillion price tag.
While political stability in the region is necessary, we have held an uneasy bias toward Israel.
From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.
Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.
Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.
Please read my above post.
And I think America has had a healthy bias in regards to Israel.
We shouldn't take what the Arab nations and enemies of Israel have to say unbiased. I wouldn't call it so much a bias as much as it is a judgment call based on history and current situations.
In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état.[2][3] Alleged examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerrilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; it is claimed that some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda's terrorist campaign against the United States.[4]
In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities. Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.
Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence.[5] Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War.
But what does that have to do with being a neo-conservative? I support putting bases in countries like Turkey and Japan for strategic reasons. I also support it on the grounds that we live in the 21st century and total war is no longer an avoidable issue. That doesn't make me a neo-con. A neo-con supports foreign policy which is DIRECTLY involved in the Middle East. If China went around putting bases in African countries I would not care as long as they were doing it with the permission of the country in question. The only base I really wish we would get rid of is Guantanamo. With the change of government in 1959 it should have been removed immediately.
What is Paul's foreign policy, if any ?BARACK OBAMA. I detest Ron Paul's foreign policy more than I detest Obama's.
I'd vote for Sarah Palin LOOOOOONG before I vote for Ron Paul.
I think that his philosophy may work in the future when man becomes civilized.
Well, if he ends up in office, then he will have to leave his libeterian policies, because they won't get through congress and won't be popular among ordinary people. However, I could imagine Ron Paul would do a lot more about the national debt than Obama does at the moment who is spending much more than Bush did. Right now, I think the national debt is the biggest problem.
There is a fundamental conflict with reducing the debt and keeping policies that the general population likes.
So should we just spend ourself into Oblivion then?
I mean, either you need to increase taxes which will remove the US advantage of beeing a low tax economy. It's also going to be a terrible left wing country. Or you reduce spending so that the country keeps its advantage, but keeps the debt down.
How can there be a "neither" choice if only two are running?
I don't really support Ron Paul, in fact I despise his foreign policy. However I'd rather have him in office over Obama.
Wait what? Sympathize with nation building? My biggest beef with Paul is his stance on Israel and the War on Terror.
America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.
And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.
What is Paul's foreign policy, if any ?
Well, if he ends up in office, then he will have to leave his libeterian policies, because they won't get through congress and won't be popular among ordinary people. However, I could imagine Ron Paul would do a lot more about the national debt than Obama does at the moment who is spending much more than Bush did. Right now, I think the national debt is the biggest problem.
Though I'm on the left of the political spectrum, I would support Ron Paul over Pres. Obama because I feel that if Ron Paul were in office he'd actually be focused on getting things done rather than trying to appease both sides all the time. Also unlike Obama, I actually agree with Ron Paul on social issues and foreign policy, Only difference I have with him though is his stance on some domestic policies.
I'd vote for Sarah Palin LOOOOOONG before I vote for Ron Paul.
Though I'm on the left of the political spectrum, I would support Ron Paul over Pres. Obama because I feel that if Ron Paul were in office he'd actually be focused on getting things done rather than trying to appease both sides all the time. Also unlike Obama, I actually agree with Ron Paul on social issues and foreign policy, Only difference I have with him though is his stance on some domestic policies.
.... Name a single issue in which any president has ever gotten their way simply because they're focused on 'getting things done'? Even George Washington had to shut the hell up when it came to freeing slaves.
I think Obama's "getting things done" track record is actually pretty good. He just has a lot to do, but he is knocking things off the punch list.
Well that's your opinion but I disagree with that mainly because on most of the major issues I was hoping for him to deal with he's failed to address them (such as: Ending the War in Iraq, Repealing The Patriot Act (which now he supports by the way), Closing Guantonimo Bay etc...).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?