The Ron Paul thread.

Can't get away with it here.

@Deboss: So you want even less spending from third wolrd governments on infrastructure and education, and even larger armies?

It's not only a horrible solution, it actually makes the problem worse. Look at Costa Rica - their government has successfully protected the environment of their country, and has achieved good progress and stability.

Nowadays, a military is olny needed if you have internarional interests to protect, or have enemies at your borders.

edited 16th Aug '11 7:35:36 PM by Erock

I think you missed the letters N, M, and P.

Not My Problem?

...tell that to the war refugees becoming illegal immigrants.

...tell that to the Germans under the Nazi regime.

...tell that to everyone under Communist rule, especially without containment.

...tell that to Ronald Reagan.

Deboss would be happy to.

I would too.

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionalst. There's a difference.

I'm okay(ish) with non-interventionism.

The British have never spent more than 2.5% of GDP on defence but is Ron Paul really going forgot about NATO and the rest of the world?

Who's the largest contributor to NATO?

The United States of America.

NATO should be shut down, since it was founded because of the Cold War which ended almost 30 years ago.

GASP! Who knew!

But that doesn't answer my question . Is Ron Paul going to leave NATO and turn it into an European Club and Canada?

Sure, Why Not?

Isn't Australia in Nato or some crazy shit like that?

No, AFAIK, Australia is in the ANZUS alliance.

For some reason, I keep thinking that NATO has a pacific country involved somehow.

^ It does, it's called the United States.

NATO has been defunct for more than 30 years. The Vietnam War was the last nail in the coffin for NATO.

Considering that we were largely isolated until the 20th Century, this isn't particularly true.

Why? The only country that actually deserved the Marshall Plan in Europe was Britain. The rest are simply rather fortunate that the Soviets were a big enough problem to make us think they were worth getting as allies, and even then, the Marshall Plan was marginally effective at best.

Discuss? Sure. Deal with the problem within our own borders? Yeah. Impose legislation on other nations. No. This is the other thing I detest about the UN: nations can force rules on other nations; even if they don't ratify it, they then face the political stigma of being "the one that didn't agree."

Not. My. Problem. Words to live by as a nation.

They don't need a military because if anyone attacked them, we would be the ones to step in and defend them. Once again, mooching.

Make them citizens, then.

Neither one was our problem until it affected Britain/Canada/the ANZAC nations.

I have yet to hear an argument as to why Ron Paul is wrong on any of his foreign policies, save South Korea...

edited 17th Aug '11 6:52:16 AM by USAF713

Ron Paul:

"What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others?"

"What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us and has nothing to do with being free and prosperous?"

"What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?"

"What if we finally decide that torture, even if called enhanced interrogation techniques, is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?"

One thing is to be isolasionist and another thing is to be a stupid imperialistic. I would give republicans some creed if as part of their "Oh no the deficit will kill us all" narrative they would at least bring the American troops from Europe and South America.

edited 17th Aug '11 7:07:03 AM by Baff

Afghanistan is a justified war. It's just stupid because it's also a war we can't win.

Pakistan can go die in a hole.

"What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5, 000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3, 000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?"

Iraq was unnecessary. Afghanistan was necessary but still a foolish decision because we couldn't win and should have known it from the start.

Your "fair trade-off" idea holds no weight with me.

why doesnt it?