Johnson GJ and Foreign Policy?

Discussion in 'Gary Johnson' started by Pain&Progress, Jul 29, 2016.

  1. Pain&Progress
    Offline

    Pain&Progress Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +6
    My economic and social views align with those of Gary Johnson and the Libertarian point of view. The views are both ideologically and practically sound. Where I get off of the Gary Johnson and Libertarian train is on foreign policy. I agree with the isolationist ideal and in the 1800s it was a practical and realistically achievable policy that severed the country well. But it isn’t practical or realistic in today’s world. Both WW1 and WW2 were the results of countries viewing the world from their own secular interests; both could have been avoided had the world acted as a community. The cold war resulted in millions of deaths but its toll is miniscule compared to the destruction and casualties that would have resulted from WW3 had the US not perused a policy of communist containment. I’ve listened to Gary Johnson’s positions, I’ve observed that he avoids and deflects questions on foreign policy. Those foreign policy positions he has stated are not realistic; such as depending on sanctions to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions or disengaging from military intervention in the Middle East. Sanctions don’t work unless you back them up with a credible threat of military force. If we militarily pull out of the Middle East, Israel will end up, with the Saudi’s help, nuking Iran; and the Saudi’s will buy themselves nuclear weapons. China will end up in a war over the south China sea with Japan, Vietnam, India, and South Korea. Pakistan and North Korea will come in on China's side. The Russians will jump in to protect India and countries such as the Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya will see this as an opportunity to fight back against Russia. WW3 will be well on its way. I see US world leadership and intervention as a burden on our country and will be the first to support a better approach but disengagement (isolationism) is a path to disaster.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. DarkFury
    Offline

    DarkFury Platinum Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Messages:
    25,011
    Thanks Received:
    7,356
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Ratings:
    +35,937
    A lot of good points but one suggestion. Paragraphs.
     
  3. william the wie
    Online

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    9,924
    Thanks Received:
    995
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,389
    Monroe was pretty early on and his doctrine still stands so I think your vision of 18 and 19th century foreign policy is a strawman. There were numerous World Wars in the 17th and 18th centuries they just weren't called that. In fact our first two wars were part of world wars fought in two different oceans and 3-4 continents with a long list of combatants on both sides
     
  4. flacaltenn
    Online

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,693
    Thanks Received:
    6,472
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,876
    There is not a isolationalist view of world from Libertarians. In fact, peaceful, mutual beneficial trade and security pacts are encouraged. It's a form of defense against aggression.

    Certainly the MEast SHOULD have been a hands-off situation since WW2. With the exception of 9/11 responses. There have been neo-cons on one side and do-gooders on the other pushing a type of Democratic Imperialism there for decades. A form of governance that is alien and unworkable in that part of the world. So we opposed intervention in the Iran-Iraq war (wish we had Saddam back to go after terrorists and the Iranians). No need to oppose the Russians in Afghan (they were correct) We opposed the deadly 12 yr "containment and embargo" of Iraq. And generally we were in favor of letting him OUT of containment --- rather than invading and occupying. A policy that in hindsight was justified if those WMD programs really did NOT pose a threat.

    I don't think in reality -- any of our strategic military alliances would change much. Other than getting a fair and equitable share of our Allies contribution. But likely we WOULD end a bunch of UNILATERAL military babysitting excersizes. Like the DMZ in Korea. No reason to sandwich 20,000 US personnel in a SYMBOLIC defense of S. Korea. The REAL defense of S. Korea exists in our ability to project awesome power from afar.

    Defense of THIS country would be the top priority. Don't think world stability would be compromised.

    What threatens stability in the Pacific right now -- are the details leaking out of the TPP agreement. All the current belligerent island building and military buildup in the SChinaSea is LIKELY the result of the US trying to ace out China in organizing the REST of Asia in a SECRET trade alliance --- FROM Which --- China is excluded.

    You'd become belligerent too. That's a bigger danger than how much money and military we have stationed there.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. flacaltenn
    Online

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,693
    Thanks Received:
    6,472
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,876
    Tell me WHY we should even be contemplating carpet bombing 3 or 5 Arab countries -- if PUTIN is willing to stick Assad back up and start repairing the wreckage we started in that region. Syria WILL be run by another bad ass tyrant. Why create the carnage to get to a new tyrant?

    If ANYTHING -- we should toss in for Safe Areas so that the massive exit wave of immigration is halted.
     
  6. william the wie
    Online

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    9,924
    Thanks Received:
    995
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,389
    Disagree on TPP and China. That has turned out to be an inadvertent head fake that has worked like a charm. China is now drilling for oil that costs more than the expected world price ever again. It costs less to import LNG from the US than to use the oil and natural gas out of the South China Sea.When that sinks in Chinese capital flight will trigger many lost decades.
     
  7. Pain&Progress
    Offline

    Pain&Progress Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +6
    During the American Civil War military technology reached a rate of advancement and lethality that separates modern war from classical war. The idea of army's of large masses of troop facing-off on the battlefield with muskets, lances, and horses was over. By the end of the Civil War accuracy and the rate of fire of infantry and cannon made classical war suicidal. The Europeans learned this the hard way during WW1 when the generals ordered calvary charges into overlapping machine gun fields of fire. The scope and speed of death and destruction of WW1 was never seen before. Technology had changed the rules of war and the way they were fought. And from that point forward the cost of war has increased to a point of utter destruction.
    My point being that the consequences of a world war using current military technology are such that we cannot afford to behave like the countries could in the 17th and 18th centuries. We simply cannot isolate ourselves from the consequences, so it's in our interest to prevent it from occurring.
     
  8. Pain&Progress
    Offline

    Pain&Progress Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +6
    Certainly the MEast SHOULD have been a hands-off situation since WW2. With the exception of 9/11 responses. There have been neo-cons on one side and do-gooders on the other pushing a type of Democratic Imperialism there for decades. A form of governance that is alien and unworkable in that part of the world. So we opposed intervention in the Iran-Iraq war (wish we had Saddam back to go after terrorists and the Iranians). No need to oppose the Russians in Afghan (they were correct) We opposed the deadly 12 yr "containment and embargo" of Iraq. And generally we were in favor of letting him OUT of containment --- rather than invading and occupying. A policy that in hindsight was justified if those WMD programs really did NOT pose a threat.

    Please elaborate on what you mean by hands-off in the Middle East after WW2? Why after, based on your ideology shouldn’t we have left North Africa to Germany and Italy? Should the Suez Canal have been built? Should post WW2 foreign aid have been provided? Should the oil resources have been developed? Should the Strait of Hormuz been kept open through military intervention? Should Iraq have been pushed out of Kuwait? Should we let Iran and possibly Saudi obtain nukes? If not how far do we go to stop them?

    How were the Russians correct in Afghanistan? They were attempting to build a land bridge to a warm water port by invading another country.

    I don't think in reality -- any of our strategic military alliances would change much. Other than getting a fair and equitable share of our Allies contribution. But likely we WOULD end a bunch of UNILATERAL military babysitting excersizes. Like the DMZ in Korea. No reason to sandwich 20,000 US personnel in a SYMBOLIC defense of S. Korea. The REAL defense of S. Korea exists in our ability to project awesome power from afar.

    Our alliances would change drastically; we are maintaining stability for the world economy and are currently positioned to project force anywhere in the world. Most of our offensive capability would be shutdown if we assume a non-interventionist defense based policy. Overseas bases will, be shutdown from which we can currently deploy troops and supplies and the number of aircraft carrier task forces will be reduced by half or more. After that we will definitely not be able to project force other than nuclear deterrents. We will definitely not have the relationships and geopolitical respect we have currently, why would we?

    Defense of THIS country would be the top priority. Don't think world stability would be compromised.

    The policy currently is basically stop the Hitler’s, Stalin’s, and Sadam’s before they get too powerful to destabilize the peace. If we pull back to a defensive role Russia and China will have a field day. Europe will crap all over itself because they don’t have a viable military capability and go along to get along. Where does that leave us… hope you have a strong defense cause you’re going to need it. Trade is only a viable foreign policy tool if you have the military capability to protect it.

    What threatens stability in the Pacific right now -- are the details leaking out of the TPP agreement. All the current belligerent island building and military buildup in the SChinaSea is LIKELY the result of the US trying to ace out China in organizing the REST of Asia in a SECRET trade alliance --- FROM Which --- China is excluded.


    You'd become belligerent too. That's a bigger danger than how much money and military we have stationed there.


    China was building islands in the South China Sea long before TPP. If we pull back from Asia there will be a war because China is determined to establish itself as a superpower. TPP is part of our foreign policy response to China's growing intimidation in the region.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2016
  9. Pain&Progress
    Offline

    Pain&Progress Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +6
    A lot of good points but one suggestion. Paragraphs.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time
     
  10. Pain&Progress
    Offline

    Pain&Progress Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +6
    I agree, a no fly zone would be a good move... but wait, wouldn't that be interventionist?

    It's not just about Syria; it's about keeping Putin contained. He attacks the Ukraine he looses Syria and possibly the Crimea.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2016

Share This Page