eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,669
- 245
Ron Paul is an isolationist. I dont care that his supporters bleat about "non-interventionism". It is a distinction without a difference. The United States is not a two bit republic on the ass-end side of the world, as we were in 1798. We are the sole super power in the world. That means in part we have interests all over the world, of one kind or another. Withdrawing from those responsibilities is simply irresponsible. Ron Paul would not have gone to war against Hitler. He would not have gone to war against Islamic extremism. His statements about the GWOT are very disturbing, echoing the loony left that we had it coming to us, or somesuch.
We certainly do have interests everywhere. Where I disagree with your assessment is in what constitutes irresponsibility. We are not talking about a wholesale withdraw overnight.
Take South Korea for example. They are among the wealthiest, most prosperous nations in Asia. Surely if we gave them a reasonable timeline, they could provide for their own security. The same holds true for scores of nations around the world where we provide security. We can have allies and even treaties of mutual response in case of conflict but do we really need troops in 150 countries? I think we can responsibly reduce that number over time.
Regarding past wars, our point is that many conflicts could have been avoided in the first place had we shunned so many foreign entanglements. For instance, if American had not intervened in WWI, I strongly believe there never would have been a WWII. Had we not had troops stationed near Mecca, it is doubtful 9/11 would have taken place. History should teach us - the interventionist approach was tried by the British empire and it failed, like so many superpowers before them.
At the end of the day, our goal is not to avoid our responsibility with other nations but to enhance our relationship with other countries through trade. Our omnipresent military makes that extremely difficult while cost US taxpayer dearly. I think we can do better.
Lastly, non of this means we shouldn't have the biggest, baddest, most well equipped military the world has ever known!
Do you honestly think 9/11 would not have happened if the US had done anything differently? That's a blame the victim mentality, which is what makes Paul such a nutjob.
Depends on what you mean by "done anything differently" but of course, your question is impossible for anyone to answer with certainly. However, I strongly suspect that we could minimized the chances for war while improving chances at trade had we not done things like working to install the Shah in Iran, holding sanctions over Iraq, favoring some countries over others with taxpayer aid, and, as I stated before, stationing troops throughout the region, including near Mecca. I wonder how we would feel if another country put their troops outside DC? Bottom line, our meddling has not produced positive returns and it costs us dearly in terms of lives and dollars. There are better ways to minimize the chances of terrorism than the broad sword that is the US military. This is my opinion.