Ron Paul, the isolationist
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The issue with the Straits of Hormuz is a perfect example of why we need a naval military presence in that part of the world, in addition to bases set up with our allies like Saudi Arabia. In spite of all their bluster, Iran will not attempt to close the straits and risk losing their entire navy which our forces could easily do. With Paul's proposed isolationist policies there would be no deterrent to Iran's bellicose intentions.
Regarding Paul's weaknesses - his foreign policy positions being the primary one - what is it about his record that would lead anyone to believe he's got the experience and qualifications to be a successful president? Granted he has some ideas that sound good in theory, but what are the accomplishments on his resume would lead anyone to think he's better prepared for the demands of this office than Romney, Gingrich, Perry or Huntsman? Remember, good speeches don't count - we've got an inexperienced master speechmaker in the White House right now, and we see how well that's working.
One other thought: the biggest threat to our national security is an inept population that doesn't vote at all.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nope - the biggest threat is that portion of the population that is actually inept - but who believe they aren't - and actually do vote.
Active morons are always worse than inactive ones ... while the inactive ones rarely harm anyone ..... the active ones are like the proverbial bull in a china shop ....
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim please understand the issues we have with Iran is our doing and we have a hated for them over the stupid issue caused by our own arrogance.
On top of that I hate to keep telling you this but Saudi Arabia is not our ally in any shape or form, we are too stupid to understand they are using us to buffer the external threats while they deal with their internal control. This problem has already been one of key issue for our losing sight of any successful operations in the middle east.
The issue of the strates is not a big deal because we need to force our "allies" to do the work for themselves as they seem to be doing with Syria.
On top of that I hate to keep telling you this but Saudi Arabia is not our ally in any shape or form, we are too stupid to understand they are using us to buffer the external threats while they deal with their internal control. This problem has already been one of key issue for our losing sight of any successful operations in the middle east.
The issue of the strates is not a big deal because we need to force our "allies" to do the work for themselves as they seem to be doing with Syria.
Last edited:
Guess we'll once again have to agree to disagree over some of these issues. That being said, it's nice for most everyone's benefit to be able to discuss the issues and argue our respective points of view without calling each other morons. But from my perspective it seems that our problems are not with the Iranian citizenry - it's the mullahs and the repressive theocracy they have in power and their bellicose attitude toward the Israelis. These guys do not have a "live and let live" guiding philosophy and will do harm to not only their neighbors, but also to us and our allies if we take an isolationist stance in that region. As you well know, we haven't had diplomatic relations with them since 1979 and it's not because the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors have been offering peace on earth to all.
I'll agree with that to a point - but they're an ally of convenience. They need us for military backup, we need them for their oil. If we could develop and harvest our own oil and natural gas resources we would need them a lot less and still sell them military hardware at obscenely high prices. We also want to maintain our influence over there to keep the royal family in place. We don't want to make the same mistake in Saudi Arabia that Jimmy Carter made in Iran with the Shah.
I couldn't disagree more on that one. The fact that 25% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz makes it a big deal. Closing the passageway would have a devastating effect on fuel prices and our economy, especially in it's current weakened state. We can't depend on "allies" to do the heavy lifting for us in a critical area like that. We know the Iranians won't challenge our Naval forces - at least so long as they don't have nuclear weapons. We need to keep it that way so the Straits stay open no matter what.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
tbubster
Seasoned Expediter
Sad you seem to see them handling syria much different then most.Try telling the family of those being killed on a daily basis by Syria's government that it is being handled.Sometimes like it or not another country that truly sees the killing of people in order for someone to stay in power has to step in and say enough.You can call it meddeling if you want.Sometimes its just the right thing to do.
As far as meddeling goes one has to wounder what america might be like today had france and spain had not meddeled on our behalf in the 1700's.Its funny how some seem to be so smart yet ignor the facts of how this country was really formed.Of how this country has worked starting with the founding fathers.
As far as Paul being an isolationist does it really matter????He has no real chance of getting the nod so this seems kinda pointless.
As far as using our troops to protect our borders will that is a good idea in thought.Yet with out giving the the right to protect the border any way they need to it will only cost us in the long run.I say line our troops up at the border and give them one order.NO WARNING SHOTS!!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Hey no problem, I don't think that we are all too far off the mark when I and others say - it is not our job. But to those who seem to be convinced that it is, maybe looking into taking a trip to some of these places and/or listening to the people who are from there may help them understand the issues and problems they are talking about when they say 'leave us alone'.
Well true, it is nice but then you have the atypical uninformed idiot who speaks the propaganda line that was created for some "patriotic" purpose and serves no purpose other than that of convincing people there is only one 'right' choice.
Well another theocracy which has been as dangerous and as problematic you are claiming to be our ally and we have yet to either understand or take into consideration that Israel is just a false facade used because of our religious connections to them to cover the problems and real target of the Iranians, of which I'm speaking of Saudi Arabia. It is there that the Iranian leadership is focused, it is there that the seat of Islam resides and it is there that the need to have a conquest to unseat the present monarchy in order to unify those who oppose the beliefs of the monarchy and the sect of Islam they support. If you understand what is under the surface and that Israel can defend themselves, then you would have a clearer picture of our involvement being the Saud's excuse by proxy in the region.
But here is the thing, the problem with the '79 crap isn't because we were an innocent player in the country's affairs but because we had been involved on many many levels with their government and the interaction between the people and the government. For what purpose it served during the cold war should be discussed and a proper historical education should take place to dispel the myths and bring out the facts at the same time putting a lot of the present situation in proper perspective. A lot of that which I speak is like the lack of news from other parts of the Middle East, we have had a blackout of information that would put to rest the idea that the '79 events were only because of some crazy arab thing and not because we were too stupid as a nation to think that they would be afraid of us when in fact they understood what we would done.
I think you are proving my point, that we as an uninformed population are convinced there is a tit for tat situation as it appears but not really. They don't need us for a military backup, that is a falsehood to ensure that they have a scapegoat if the rest of the region comes down on them. The truth seems to be that they have been using us to shore up their own internal powers while using us to deal with the threats externally.
As for our own oil, sorry but that's another, actually that's a lie. Here is the problem with "if we have our own oil sources" thing, the rest of the world depends on their oil as much as we do, there is no difference between the two. When we step out of the "big oil purchasing lake" we just do so in supply but not involvement. What I mean is we fought as a Nato nation to stop Libya's leadership from putting down a resistance, not because we saw freedom lurking around the corner but because our "allies" (really former foes) depend on Libya for cheap oil. We spent millions on an operation that ensured that they in the future would have the same access to that oil and prevent a meltdown of their economy, hope that makes sense. So back to my point, if we have our own sources of oil, our involvement would be the same not because our economy would be dependent on them directly but the world would be dependent on their oil - hence our problem. It is what many have been saying, we need to stop being the world's police and focus on ourselves.
By the way, there is another lie about having our own oil sources - the prices would at the market price because it is an open market. So that $30 a bbl that we are producing would still go to the consumer at the market price.
Seriously, don't take this as an insult or bashing you but we have little influence over the Sauds. They have a lot of influence over us.
How's that?
We didn't put the house of Saud in power, we didn't meddle in their affairs and it is as close to a closed society as one can get to China in the 60's or the Soviet Union in the early 30's.
Our biggest mistake is to agree with anything they do so willingly, one reason is it shows weakness and at this time we are weak.
I understand where you are coming from but there isn't much talk about the complexity and most miss a couple points, one is that the Arabia peninsula has three countries involved and two of which are unstable. The other is that if the Sauds want to sell the oil, they can build a pipeline to the other side, we did for Alaska and hopefully one going through the middle of our country, they have both the money and man power to build and guard it.
But it is an Arab problem, the Sauds need the money, they need to step up and solve the problems through the Arab council and they need to put to rest some of the problems between them and the Iranians - we can not do that or even approach it no matter what many seem to think.
Well who are our allies is the first question we need to ask, it surely isn't Iraq and the Sauds, I don't think we can count on anyone there except Israel and they have said they would handle it themselves. I think that we need to have an understanding of our own limitations which is clouded by our own arrogance. We seem to think that the no matter what is only the use of military force when it can be something along the lines of what I mentioned we need to do in Afghanistan, tell the leadership of the country we are leaving unless they start moving towards our wants, in others words - bye. It isn't the problem that if Iran has nukes, we need to do is to get those other countries more involved with the Middle East affairs to solve these problem in order to have the money they want to have.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sad that we support things that we should promote others to support, like Libya which was an African issue, not a US issue.
I can't help but think that if we would attack Syria, even with the permission of the Arab council, we would end up facing more issues from extremist than we would the rest of the world by staying out of it.
Different situation altogether. We are not an Islamic based Arab nation, we were not fighting a civil war against a repressive government who kills citizens to put down opposition.
Think of it this way, during the civil war if France, England and the German states along with the Holy Roman Empire got together and said that the confederate states of America were right and we, the United States had to capitulate and sue for peace, what would you think would the reaction of congress and the president be?
I don't see it as isolationism, I see it as non-interventionism that is sorely needed.
I agree ...
The "leave us alone" policy might be easier to implement if the Iranians would leave others alone as well. Maybe we could be more non-interventionist if they would renounce their state sponsorship of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestine Islamic Jihad, stop their interventions in Iraq and reign in the activities of the Quds Force and its support of the Taliban.
True, the royal family needs us to shore up their internal stability. But they can't get the military hardware or technology like ours anywhere else, and we don't want them to go shopping in Russia or China. It would also be nice if they didn't go nuclear and right now they don't need to with us as an ally. But if we bail on them as suggested by candidate Paul, they would surely go nuclear to have a deterrent against Iran - and that's just what the world needs is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We need to stay involved over there.
But market price would be influenced by supply and demand. There are three obvious benefits to our development of our own oil resources: (1)Price would go down with increased supply (2)Our dependence on foreign oil would be lessened (3)Our economic rebound would be vastly improved and a huge source of wealth and stable jobs would be created. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by developing our own energy sources.
Disagree - see previous statement on the Saudis.
The countries over there have to stabilize their governments and national economies for all that to happen, and that stability isn't going to happen any time soon. Soon the Syrian govt will topple and they'll be going through the same mess as Lybia and Egypt. Iraq will struggle for several years to come, especially if Iran makes a likely interventionist move. The harsh reality is that if we don't maintain a presence in these places the Chinese and especially the Russians will fill the void of our absence. We're in a situation of choosing the lesser of the evils, like it or not. An isolationist foreign policy only avoids - or postpones - making the hard choices.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well first it isn't "leave us alone" but "let's leave them alone" policy, a bit of a difference there. No matter what, the idea that we need to be involved (selectively that is) is part of our internal and external problem.
If Iran was to say come to grips with what the west is demanding, then it would be an issue internally that they took a step backwards, not forwards. In the eyes of their enemies and even their allies, they are fighting the west and the colonization style of being messed with that the west has been doing since the fall of Turkish rule. This is one of the problems of the entire middle east and only two countries within the region have been diplomatic enough to deal with the west on terms that they understand. If you can't figure out how the Iranians feel, maybe understanding what we and others have been doing there for a while - their reaction would be the same as ours if the tables were turned.
Beside, we provided a lot of money to Hezbollah - you do know that?
Well shoring up their internal stability is one thing but using us as a distraction and putting us in the cross hairs is a BIG problem for us. If you may remember that the Sauds are the source for how many of the hijackers who drove the planes into the WTC ... I think it may be 16, with a direct connection to the financing of the operation through Saudi Arabia. Mind you that if you want to talk about cooperation, I think we got more cooperation from Libya with the issues of Al Queda than we ever have with the Sauds.
On top of that, if we are supposed to be (take your pick) either spreading democracy and freedom across the globe or if we are protecting our freedoms by being in places that we shouldn't be in, where does our allying with the Sauds leave us?
Who says they haven't been?
Why should we be exporting our technology to a country that is internally unstable like UAE and Omar?
I don't see the reasoning behind our best going to a region where we lose control of it, they are not like the Germans or even for that matter the French.
I guess the question should be "why hasn't Iran been able to buy a nuke from China or the Russians when they have the money to do so?"
The same question could be asked of the Sauds, but then if they get one, I think Israel would also react to that by launching a strike against them, a true escalation.
Well that seems to be more myth than true. Speculation in the market is the biggest influence which is tied to emotion of the market.
1 - not really, if there is strife in the middle east, the market will react and the price will rise even if supply is not reduced. Maybe in the long term it would bring the price down to a stable level but right now Opec can do that if they want by increasing supply which triggers the emotion in the market.
2 - true to a point, but our dependence isn't about the actual oil, it is about the market. We buy all kinds of oil on the market, a company like BP extracts its own supply and that supply is marketed at prices based on the market pricing, not their cost. This goes back to the issue #1, where the market dictates the price. By the way, I think if we produce more oil, it would go to China.
3 - to a point. I think there is more to be said that jobs would be produced but the limit of those jobs wouldn't be as needed - 5 to 7 million jobs. Most of the jobs would be in extraction, supply processing would not increase as would distribution all because the system is not going to expand much if at all.
True and I agree with you on that, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain but alas we have too many stupid people not thinking in this country.
Well the countries over there can stabilize their governments if they are allowed to progress with their own ideas and ways to fill their needs. What Iran represents is a mess that we involved ourselves because we thought they were too dumb to handle it and tried to westernize the culture. This is why we failed in Iraq and failing all over the middle east - this doctrine of spreading democracy is a fallacy when the people have their own idea of what democracy is.
The best solution we can have is not to demand things from them but to allow them to have the region grow and deal with them, like Iran. If it is an Arab against Arab country, then it is their right to fix their problems but we should not try to interject a foreign culture and demand they follow that way of thinking. I guess my point can be better made to point to when Iraq was forming their constitution and people here were so incensed that it has a religious (Muslim) tone to the entire document and further outrage when Sharia Law was mentioned. We don't get that, many are still dumbfounded by it here and in Europe but it seems to work for them.
Well I think we need to ask ourselves what shouldn't we do and where should we be. Syria is a problem, not because of the present government but what that will unleash, remember that they gave us problems in the past and have been part of the Lebanon issue. Libya and Egypt is a mess and we should not have been involved with them at all without assurances that there will be a friendly government but alas we still give a crap load of money to Egypt when we need to just cut them off.
Well see here is the thing, they are already there. Look at the alliances and how they were formed and by whom.
China has been in Africa, a place we seem to ignore and they have been moving to capture the oil in parts of Africa where we should be so we lost out on that.
BUT a very important issue has also been ignored and should be more of a worry than any middle east issue - Pakistan. See maybe you read this before when I said we need to focus on that country, not because they hold our oil supply in their hands but they hold our banking and financial life in their hands. This is two different threats, one with them directly and the other is if they go to war with India which could happen if they get into an internal problem with the factions of radicals that want to take over the country. On top of that, China has a foot hold with them diplomatically because of the Kashmir region and I bet they would have a very fast ally with China if there is a problem with that region and India. The other part of this is what access China has, seeing they are involved with Pakistan and Pakistan has no laws about identity stealing.
clcooper
Expert Expediter
i remember when i was in school there was a class on how to be the president of the United States . and the teacher was Al Capone .
some of you are using words yourself don't even know what they mean or stand for .
with the USA being in other countries . and the problems with US being there . what did Regan do over there . with Oliver North . and is that the only thing that we had ever did in any other country
only the strong survive . so if the strong believes that if they can survive by taking you guns away .will you still say only the strong survive . so if somebody breaks your knees does that mean they are stronger then you so they need to survive and you don't .
allot ignore the facts on other issues also just like the fact
just like this somebody needs to check their facts some more
BAE Systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
""keep hitting your finger when you pound a nail or be smart and find out why and fix the problem so you don't hit your finger anymore ""
because what you see on TV isn't real doesn't mean it doesn't happening in real life . people don't lie ,steel ,cheat others in real life like they do on TV right .
some of you are using words yourself don't even know what they mean or stand for .
with the USA being in other countries . and the problems with US being there . what did Regan do over there . with Oliver North . and is that the only thing that we had ever did in any other country
only the strong survive . so if the strong believes that if they can survive by taking you guns away .will you still say only the strong survive . so if somebody breaks your knees does that mean they are stronger then you so they need to survive and you don't .
allot ignore the facts on other issues also just like the fact
just like this somebody needs to check their facts some more
BAE Systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
""keep hitting your finger when you pound a nail or be smart and find out why and fix the problem so you don't hit your finger anymore ""
because what you see on TV isn't real doesn't mean it doesn't happening in real life . people don't lie ,steel ,cheat others in real life like they do on TV right .
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The above brings up the issue of the Iranian society and culture and the mindset of the populace ..... where they find themselves currently and why they are there .....
And what is the likelihood that they will evolve beyond the type of theocracy that they are currently subject to ... (in my opinion the likelihood is very good, given time - provided that things are not done by outsiders which drive the reasonables directly into the waiting arms of the radicals ....)
I recently watched a video of a lecture given by Rick Steves (a travel writer/videographer) about the trip he made there back in, I think 2008 or 2009, to do a documentary of the country and it's people for Oregon Public Television.
It was undertaken an effort to raise awareness and understanding of the Iranian people ..... and their society and culture .... in light of all the continuing saber-rattling and war propaganda.
Both are roughly an hour long and interesting - particularly with respect to what compromises the Iranian people have accepted - in terms of subjecting themselves to a theocracy - and why they did/do it.
The lecture is instructive in offering some insights (Steves' obviously) into the people of Iran and the present circumstances they find themselves in. Both are worth watching.
Essentially it (the initial embrace of, followed by tolerance of, a particular theocracy) is a direct reaction to, and blowback from, insertion of the less desirable and decadent aspects of western culture into a society of a deeply religious people, who care greatly about their families and their identity as a culture and a people.
One of the most enlightening (and quite amusing) things I found had to do with how certain colloquialisms (sayings or expressions that are specific to a particular place, region, or people) can be greatly misunderstood by those who have no real knowledge of the people or culture they come from.
This one has to do with the sayings of "Death to America[/B"] or "Death to the USA" and "Death to Israel" .....
Steves' is traveling in a vehicle through Tehran in heavy traffic:
"As we struggled to drive along a horribly congested Tehran street, our Iranian driver Majid suddenly declared, "Death to traffic."
This outburst caught my attention. I said, "I thought it was 'Death to America.'" He explained, "Here in Iran, when something frustrates us and we have no control over it, this is what we say. 'Death to traffic.'"
The casual tone of Majid's telling aside made me think differently about one of the biggest concerns many Americans have about Iranians: Their penchant for declaring "Death to" this and that. Did Majid literally want to kill all those drivers that were in our way?
The experience made me wonder if Iranians' "Death to" curses are not so different from Westerners who exclaim, "**** those French" or "**** this traffic jam." If we say, "**** those teenagers," we don't really want them to die and burn in hell for eternity. Just turn down the music."
This outburst caught my attention. I said, "I thought it was 'Death to America.'" He explained, "Here in Iran, when something frustrates us and we have no control over it, this is what we say. 'Death to traffic.'"
The casual tone of Majid's telling aside made me think differently about one of the biggest concerns many Americans have about Iranians: Their penchant for declaring "Death to" this and that. Did Majid literally want to kill all those drivers that were in our way?
The experience made me wonder if Iranians' "Death to" curses are not so different from Westerners who exclaim, "**** those French" or "**** this traffic jam." If we say, "**** those teenagers," we don't really want them to die and burn in hell for eternity. Just turn down the music."
Steves' goes on to say:
Dont get me wrong: All those "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" murals are impossible to justify. But they seemed so incongruous with the gregarious people I met. Do the Iranians literally wish "death" to the US and Israel? Or is it a mix of international road rage, fear, frustration — and the seductive clarity of a catchy slogan?
In short, in terms of real understanding, full context, is everything ....
Considering that ..... death to low freight rates !
Last edited: