*note, I split these two posts so it didn't become a foreign policy debate as opposed to what that thread was intended for*

(05-23-2015 09:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I've actually become more Moderate in the past 10 years when it comes to social issues, as long as the Government doesn't subsidize it.

As far as Military issues, if Clinton had pulled the trigger on UBL when he had the opportunity in 97/98 then 9/11 would likely not have happened. W Bush screwed up when AQ wasn't wiped out in Tora Bora in 12/01. Saddam could have been contained if not for the Israeli pressure. Iraq invasion was not necessary.

I'm all in favor of JSOC dealing with "issues" if it prevents "Nation Building"

What worries me now is the Chinese AA/AD and aggressive Foreign Policy. The Chinese don't play well with the neighbors with whom we have Defense Treaties. We need to be tough with the Chinese

We really backed ourselves in a corner with these "protection (defense) treaties." There has to be a time when we have to worry about ourselves, first. The only reason why we're in the Middle East is to protect our Petro Dollar & our deals made with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

(05-23-2015 10:03 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 09:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I've actually become more Moderate in the past 10 years when it comes to social issues, as long as the Government doesn't subsidize it.

As far as Military issues, if Clinton had pulled the trigger on UBL when he had the opportunity in 97/98 then 9/11 would likely not have happened. W Bush screwed up when AQ wasn't wiped out in Tora Bora in 12/01. Saddam could have been contained if not for the Israeli pressure. Iraq invasion was not necessary.

I'm all in favor of JSOC dealing with "issues" if it prevents "Nation Building"

What worries me now is the Chinese AA/AD and aggressive Foreign Policy. The Chinese don't play well with the neighbors with whom we have Defense Treaties. We need to be tough with the Chinese

We really backed ourselves in a corner with these "protection (defense) treaties." There has to be a time when we have to worry about ourselves, first. The only reason why we're in the Middle East is to protect our Petro Dollar & our deals made with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

I think most of our defense treaties are ok, but I see two major problems:

1) Ukraine ... I believe we guaranteed their defense and we've weaseled out of that. And that doesn't bode well for the Baltic countries.
2) Taiwan ... Does anyone believe we'd go to war with China if China went all out for Taiwan? I think Taiwan is living on borrowed time.

(05-23-2015 11:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 10:03 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 09:09 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I've actually become more Moderate in the past 10 years when it comes to social issues, as long as the Government doesn't subsidize it.

As far as Military issues, if Clinton had pulled the trigger on UBL when he had the opportunity in 97/98 then 9/11 would likely not have happened. W Bush screwed up when AQ wasn't wiped out in Tora Bora in 12/01. Saddam could have been contained if not for the Israeli pressure. Iraq invasion was not necessary.

I'm all in favor of JSOC dealing with "issues" if it prevents "Nation Building"

What worries me now is the Chinese AA/AD and aggressive Foreign Policy. The Chinese don't play well with the neighbors with whom we have Defense Treaties. We need to be tough with the Chinese

We really backed ourselves in a corner with these "protection (defense) treaties." There has to be a time when we have to worry about ourselves, first. The only reason why we're in the Middle East is to protect our Petro Dollar & our deals made with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

I think most of our defense treaties are ok, but I see two major problems:

1) Ukraine ... I believe we guaranteed their defense and we've weaseled out of that. And that doesn't bode well for the Baltic countries.
2) Taiwan ... Does anyone believe we'd go to war with China if China went all out for Taiwan? I think Taiwan is living on borrowed time.

3) S. Korea: Would it really affect the US's interests if S. Korea fell to N. Korea (other than losing a democracy to communism)? If S. Korea was to fall to N. Korea it would be a failure on our part for a lack of training. We've been there for 50+ years now.

4) Middle East: We really need to tell the libtards to F'off and drill our oil in the US. The "not in my backyard" mentality needs to end. We're wasting far too many assets on a land where an enemy (today) is your friend (tomorrow) and your friend (today) is your enemy (tomorrow). Is Saudi Arabia really our friend? How about Israel? I get being their friend due to biblical reasons; however, how exactly is this bond benefiting the United States? They say "bomb __________," and we say "Sir, yes sir!"

5) Europe: What exactly is the point in having military bases in Spain, Italy, England, Germany, and so on? Of our bases outside our borders, the only ones atm that make real logical sense are in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, and other spots in the Middle East to deal with #4. But still, with the EU and stuff, it's really time to allocate our assets elsewhere especially on the home front.

6) The US: If we can't protect our own borders, how in the world can we be the world's policeman?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what I really don't understand here, people are quick to say that Ron/Rand Paul are friggan idiots when it comes to foreign policy.... but sh*t, our foreign policy been a joke since WWII. Both Republicans and Democrats are wrong when it comes to Iraq and are quick to point out the other's short falls. Yes, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place, and yes we should have never announced when exactly we were leaving Iraq. Just 3 days ago over 100 military vehicles/tanks fell into the hands of ISIS. We are dealing with an Iraqi Army that's having it's officers surrender their own troops without them knowing only for those troops to be slaughtered. So who's truly the friggan idiots: the Pauls, or the D's and R's that consistently f*ck up?

My main problem with Rand Paul is he projects weakness. While what he says makes philosophical sense, the threat of action is important psychologically. He has to learn how to talk tough. 99% of foreign policy is talking.

(05-24-2015 07:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  My main problem with Rand Paul is he projects weakness. While what he says makes philosophical sense, the threat of action is important psychologically. He has to learn how to talk tough. 99% of foreign policy is talking.

ISIS doesn't understand the nuances of libertarianism. Literally the only thing they understand and respect is brute force.

This also essentially applies to Russia, China, and the rest of the non-Western world.

(05-24-2015 08:11 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 07:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  My main problem with Rand Paul is he projects weakness. While what he says makes philosophical sense, the threat of action is important psychologically. He has to learn how to talk tough. 99% of foreign policy is talking.

ISIS doesn't understand the nuances of libertarianism. Literally the only thing they understand and respect is brute force.

This also essentially applies to Russia, China, and the rest of the non-Western world.

Also why you never know what you are going to get with regards to foreign policy in a president. Bush campaigned on my philosophy in 2000, but turned neoconservative after 9/11. Obama campaigned on an anti war platform and smart diplomacy and turned into a diplomatic disaster and... A neoconservative. I was in 8th grade in 1992 so I wasn't into it enough to remember what Bubba campaigned on. You never know what they will do when hypothetical becomes real and snake oil advisors are in their ear 24/7. It is almost useless as a campaign issue other than learning if they have good study habits.

(05-24-2015 08:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 08:11 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 07:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  My main problem with Rand Paul is he projects weakness. While what he says makes philosophical sense, the threat of action is important psychologically. He has to learn how to talk tough. 99% of foreign policy is talking.

ISIS doesn't understand the nuances of libertarianism. Literally the only thing they understand and respect is brute force.

This also essentially applies to Russia, China, and the rest of the non-Western world.

Also why you never know what you are going to get with regards to foreign policy in a president. Bush campaigned on my philosophy in 2000, but turned neoconservative after 9/11. Obama campaigned on an anti war platform and smart diplomacy and turned into a diplomatic disaster and... A neoconservative. I was in 8th grade in 1992 so I wasn't into it enough to remember what Bubba campaigned on. You never know what they will do when hypothetical becomes real and snake oil advisors are in their ear 24/7. It is almost useless as a campaign issue other than learning if they have good study habits.

In 1992, the Cold War had just ended and we all thought foreign conflicts were done. Bubba campaigned as a moderate Democrat and everyone's focus was on domestic issues. Bush would have won a second term, but Perot hated Bush and cost him the election.

Of course, Bubba was supposed to be a "moderate" and the first thing he did was put Hillary in charge of socializing medicine. That went over like a lead balloon, so we got Newt and the first Republican congress in over 40 years.

You probably know the rest.

We're in South Korea to prevent a war from restarting. It doesn't matter if the South Koreans kick the North Korean's asses or vice versus. If we're there North Korea is 100x more likely NOT to start a war. An American serviceman spends a relatively light-duty tour in an interesting foreign country and we prevent MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM DYING. You think Kim Jong Un has any qualms about dropping an atom bomb on Soeul? The South Koreans foot nearly the entire bill for us being there. And this doesn't even touch the economic factors. You know how much trade we do with Taiwan and S. Korea and yes CHINA? You'd have a hard time picking 10 electronic items in your home that weren't made in Asia. Millions and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia, a little war on the Korean Peninsula surely wouldn't mess that up, right? You think life rolls on all nice and neat if we move back and say "have at it boys! we'll just watch"?

Same garbage foreign policy philosophy held sway after 1918 and we got Hitler because we're too busy looking inward to worry about the rest of the planet. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why the Chinese are testing us now. They want to find chinks in the armor. They saw how Obama folded on Ukraine and they want to see if they can do the same thing. This is a dangerous time to have a weak foreign policy President.

(05-24-2015 03:33 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We're in South Korea to prevent a war from restarting. It doesn't matter if the South Koreans kick the North Korean's asses or vice versus. If we're there North Korea is 100x more likely NOT to start a war. An American serviceman spends a relatively light-duty tour in an interesting foreign country and we prevent MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM DYING. You think Kim Jong Un has any qualms about dropping an atom bomb on Soeul? The South Koreans foot nearly the entire bill for us being there. And this doesn't even touch the economic factors. You know how much trade we do with Taiwan and S. Korea and yes CHINA? You'd have a hard time picking 10 electronic items in your home that weren't made in Asia. Millions and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia, a little war on the Korean Peninsula surely wouldn't mess that up, right? You think life rolls on all nice and neat if we move back and say "have at it boys! we'll just watch"?

Same garbage foreign policy philosophy held sway after 1918 and we got Hitler because we're too busy looking inward to worry about the rest of the planet. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why the Chinese are testing us now. They want to find chinks in the armor. They saw how Obama folded on Ukraine and they want to see if they can do the same thing. This is a dangerous time to have a weak foreign policy President.

This!

Every time we have tried the isolationist policy pushed by many on here it has ended up costing us. If you are going to participate in a world economy you are going to have to protect your interests abroad.

(05-24-2015 06:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 03:33 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We're in South Korea to prevent a war from restarting. It doesn't matter if the South Koreans kick the North Korean's asses or vice versus. If we're there North Korea is 100x more likely NOT to start a war. An American serviceman spends a relatively light-duty tour in an interesting foreign country and we prevent MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM DYING. You think Kim Jong Un has any qualms about dropping an atom bomb on Soeul? The South Koreans foot nearly the entire bill for us being there. And this doesn't even touch the economic factors. You know how much trade we do with Taiwan and S. Korea and yes CHINA? You'd have a hard time picking 10 electronic items in your home that weren't made in Asia. Millions and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia, a little war on the Korean Peninsula surely wouldn't mess that up, right? You think life rolls on all nice and neat if we move back and say "have at it boys! we'll just watch"?

Same garbage foreign policy philosophy held sway after 1918 and we got Hitler because we're too busy looking inward to worry about the rest of the planet. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why the Chinese are testing us now. They want to find chinks in the armor. They saw how Obama folded on Ukraine and they want to see if they can do the same thing. This is a dangerous time to have a weak foreign policy President.

This!

Every time we have tried the isolationist policy pushed by many on here it has ended up costing us. If you are going to participate in a world economy you are going to have to protect your interests abroad.

Have either of you ever been abroad? Why aren't Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, and many other Euro Nations protecting their own trade interests? Oh wait, the United States is doing it for them. In case you guys didn't notice, Americans on main street are hurting. It's really time to scrape this free trade bull sh*t and rebuild America or we're bound to become a 3rd World Nation. Hell, plenty of places in the Rust Belt is already nearly there. We're investing as much money towards defense as the next 15 nations combined. And sadly more than 50% of that money is admin bureaucracy nonsense.

And honestly, Kim would be dumb as sh*t to drop a nuke on S. Korea. That would be suicide. Even the Chinese would wipe his ass clean for doing such an act. That would be political suicide for the young pup.

Or lets continue the path we're currently going. The chicken-hawks are doing a fantastic job handling foreign policy the past 50 years.

(05-24-2015 08:22 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 06:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 03:33 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We're in South Korea to prevent a war from restarting. It doesn't matter if the South Koreans kick the North Korean's asses or vice versus. If we're there North Korea is 100x more likely NOT to start a war. An American serviceman spends a relatively light-duty tour in an interesting foreign country and we prevent MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM DYING. You think Kim Jong Un has any qualms about dropping an atom bomb on Soeul? The South Koreans foot nearly the entire bill for us being there. And this doesn't even touch the economic factors. You know how much trade we do with Taiwan and S. Korea and yes CHINA? You'd have a hard time picking 10 electronic items in your home that weren't made in Asia. Millions and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia, a little war on the Korean Peninsula surely wouldn't mess that up, right? You think life rolls on all nice and neat if we move back and say "have at it boys! we'll just watch"?

Same garbage foreign policy philosophy held sway after 1918 and we got Hitler because we're too busy looking inward to worry about the rest of the planet. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why the Chinese are testing us now. They want to find chinks in the armor. They saw how Obama folded on Ukraine and they want to see if they can do the same thing. This is a dangerous time to have a weak foreign policy President.

This!

Every time we have tried the isolationist policy pushed by many on here it has ended up costing us. If you are going to participate in a world economy you are going to have to protect your interests abroad.

Have either of you ever been abroad? Why aren't Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, and many other Euro Nations protecting their own trade interests? Oh wait, the United States is doing it for them. In case you guys didn't notice, Americans on main street are hurting. It's really time to scrape this free trade bull sh*t and rebuild America or we're bound to become a 3rd World Nation. Hell, plenty of places in the Rust Belt is already nearly there. We're investing as much money towards defense as the next 15 nations combined. And sadly more than 50% of that money is admin bureaucracy nonsense.

And honestly, Kim would be dumb as sh*t to drop a nuke on S. Korea. That would be suicide. Even the Chinese would wipe his ass clean for doing such an act. That would be political suicide for the young pup.

Or lets continue the path we're currently going. The chicken-hawks are doing a fantastic job handling foreign policy the past 50 years.

Cool rant bro.

We could withdraw from the entire world tomorrow and it wouldn't make a positive difference on Main St because the absolute last thing that has hurt Main St has been our military. If anything it's one of the few national industries that we don't have to worry going overseas.

What has hurt Main St, USA has been regulations and taxes, which a large part are caused by programs that have absolutely no Constitutional requirement.

Whenever there is a discussion about why the Libertarian Party can't get more traction I always mention that they have good points and then they go off out not in left field but in the far reaches of the parking lot beyond left field on some issues. The insistence of the Libertarian Party that we withdraw to our borders is one of those. The first time in history that the United States was even mentioned as a world power was when Teddy Roosevelt ordered the Great White Fleet on it's world tour between 1907-1909, and ever since our status as a world power has been unquestioned. The idealistic but misguided ideals of Libertarians would cede that status for no realistic reason.

(05-24-2015 08:22 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Or lets continue the path we're currently going. The chicken-hawks are doing a fantastic job handling foreign policy the past 50 years.

Yes they have been doing a great job. American Foreign Policy's top Constitutional Priority is the defense of American lives and property. Last I checked a nuclear weapon hasn't been used since the second one was dropped and not one has ever been aggressively detonated in our Hemisphere. Plenty of little wars everywhere but none on our borders or in them. When was the last time we had a World War?

How many Americans died in the World Wars caused by our not leading this world?

28 years = 521,915

How many Americans have died since we became the leaders on this planet?

70 years = 102,002

1/5th in more than twice the time period. I'd say that's a success and trending in the right direction.

(05-24-2015 08:50 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 08:22 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Or lets continue the path we're currently going. The chicken-hawks are doing a fantastic job handling foreign policy the past 50 years.

Yes they have been doing a great job. American Foreign Policy's top Constitutional Priority is the defense of American lives and property. Last I checked a nuclear weapon hasn't been used since the second one was dropped and not one has ever been aggressively detonated in our Hemisphere. Plenty of little wars everywhere but none on our borders or in them. When was the last time we had a World War?

How many Americans died in the World Wars caused by our not leading this world?

28 years = 521,915

How many Americans have died since we became the leaders on this planet?

70 years = 102,002

1/5th in more than twice the time period. I'd say that's a success and trending in the right direction.

That is a point that should be made loudly and often.

(05-24-2015 06:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 03:33 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We're in South Korea to prevent a war from restarting. It doesn't matter if the South Koreans kick the North Korean's asses or vice versus. If we're there North Korea is 100x more likely NOT to start a war. An American serviceman spends a relatively light-duty tour in an interesting foreign country and we prevent MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM DYING. You think Kim Jong Un has any qualms about dropping an atom bomb on Soeul? The South Koreans foot nearly the entire bill for us being there. And this doesn't even touch the economic factors. You know how much trade we do with Taiwan and S. Korea and yes CHINA? You'd have a hard time picking 10 electronic items in your home that weren't made in Asia. Millions and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia, a little war on the Korean Peninsula surely wouldn't mess that up, right? You think life rolls on all nice and neat if we move back and say "have at it boys! we'll just watch"?

Same garbage foreign policy philosophy held sway after 1918 and we got Hitler because we're too busy looking inward to worry about the rest of the planet. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why the Chinese are testing us now. They want to find chinks in the armor. They saw how Obama folded on Ukraine and they want to see if they can do the same thing. This is a dangerous time to have a weak foreign policy President.

This!

Every time we have tried the isolationist policy pushed by many on here it has ended up costing us. If you are going to participate in a world economy you are going to have to protect your interests abroad.

Isolationism is our foreign policy of the 1920's, when we essentially closed our eyes and ears to the rest of the world after needlessly going into WWI. We jacked up tariffs/quotas and rejected the League of Nations, our only efforts at foreign policy were minor events like the Washington Naval Conference under Harding. Such a policy is dangerous, I'm sure both of you and I would agree.

There is a different between isolationism and non-interventionalism. Non-interventionalism means you don't act as the world's policeman through irrelevant military conflicts which waste American lives and money without protecting our interests. At the same time, you still actively engage in diplomacy and free trade with the rest of the world, except without a gun aimed at everyone else. I'm not saying that tomorrow we should pack up the Mayflower truck and say bye to the rest of the world, but we can certainly phase out needless operations abroad and shift some responsibility to other countries (or at least to like-minded Western nations) so we can focus on domestic issues more seriously. If something develops that seriously threatens American interests as a whole, then by all means go all in and end, I mean end, the threat (I'm looking at you ISIS) with no holds barred and the operation finished within months. Make sure that whomever is left behaves on their own because they don't even want to think about America for the rest of their lives. Once you establish that the US is a brutal SOB (which has been watered down so much through Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) you keep the rest of the world in line.

(05-24-2015 06:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 03:33 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  We're in South Korea to prevent a war from restarting. It doesn't matter if the South Koreans kick the North Korean's asses or vice versus. If we're there North Korea is 100x more likely NOT to start a war. An American serviceman spends a relatively light-duty tour in an interesting foreign country and we prevent MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM DYING. You think Kim Jong Un has any qualms about dropping an atom bomb on Soeul? The South Koreans foot nearly the entire bill for us being there. And this doesn't even touch the economic factors. You know how much trade we do with Taiwan and S. Korea and yes CHINA? You'd have a hard time picking 10 electronic items in your home that weren't made in Asia. Millions and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia, a little war on the Korean Peninsula surely wouldn't mess that up, right? You think life rolls on all nice and neat if we move back and say "have at it boys! we'll just watch"?

Same garbage foreign policy philosophy held sway after 1918 and we got Hitler because we're too busy looking inward to worry about the rest of the planet. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is why the Chinese are testing us now. They want to find chinks in the armor. They saw how Obama folded on Ukraine and they want to see if they can do the same thing. This is a dangerous time to have a weak foreign policy President.

This!

Every time we have tried the isolationist policy pushed by many on here it has ended up costing us. If you are going to participate in a world economy you are going to have to protect your interests abroad.

We have a problem conflating isolationism with non interventionism. Libertarians are not isolationist. In fact...most of them support a very strong military. They just favor using it prudently...not flippantly.

(05-24-2015 10:41 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Isolationism is our foreign policy of the 1920's, when we essentially closed our eyes and ears to the rest of the world after needlessly going into WWI. We jacked up tariffs/quotas and rejected the League of Nations, our only efforts at foreign policy were minor events like the Washington Naval Conference under Harding. Such a policy is dangerous, I'm sure both of you and I would agree.
There is a different between isolationism and non-interventionalism. Non-interventionalism means you don't act as the world's policeman through irrelevant military conflicts which waste American lives and money without protecting our interests. At the same time, you still actively engage in diplomacy and free trade with the rest of the world, except without a gun aimed at everyone else. I'm not saying that tomorrow we should pack up the Mayflower truck and say bye to the rest of the world, but we can certainly phase out needless operations abroad and shift some responsibility to other countries (or at least to like-minded Western nations) so we can focus on domestic issues more seriously. If something develops that seriously threatens American interests as a whole, then by all means go all in and end, I mean end, the threat (I'm looking at you ISIS) with no holds barred and the operation finished within months. Make sure that whomever is left behaves on their own because they don't even want to think about America for the rest of their lives. Once you establish that the US is a brutal SOB (which has been watered down so much through Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) you keep the rest of the world in line.

(05-25-2015 08:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  We have a problem conflating isolationism with non interventionism. Libertarians are not isolationist. In fact...most of them support a very strong military. They just favor using it prudently...not flippantly.

Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.

If libertarians fight a war, they will intend to win it. They will insist on maintaining a military that is up to that task. Once the world sees what a US military that intends to win looks like, nobody will be picking a fight with us for a long time. That is peace through strength.