From a discussion on facebook:
Discussion history is this section before the first line of asterisks (****)
After this history, my own comment sections will have a double asterisk before them (**) - if I don't mess it up. :)
Tim:
*Actually, his foreign policy is non-intervention, not isolationism. They are *very* different things. In fact, in some aspects they are opposites.
1 Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
2 Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.
*As to Iran being a threat, he relies on the same intelligence that all the saber-rattling war mongers do, as they scream for a preemptive strike in the name of "national security". At the time when he commented on that intelligence, it said that Iran didn't pose any viable threat to the US. They don't even have an air force that could reach us, let alone anything to deliver.
*He has no intention of abandoning our allies, rather he intends to *keep* them as allies, with non-interventionism - instead of continually occupying others' lands and interfering with *their* business. Someone being your friend (or unfriendly neighbor) doesn't give you the right to live in their house and tell them what to do, right?
That "isolationist" foreign policy meme about him is old and thoroughly debunked - just not so much on TV. The major networks don't like to tell the truth. It's not good for [their] business.
Brendan:
Okay, let me restate: Ron Paul believes that returning America to non-interventionism will work out better in the 2010s than it did in the 1930s. Now I'll paste some definitions of my own: "Ally : to form or enter into an alliance". "Non-interventionism: Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations...". Those definitions would seem to support my statement about Paul's intention to abandon our allies, but to be clear, I'm referring specifically to Israel here. It will be tough to *keep* Israel as an ally if they don't exist anymore, and it is a stated goal of Iran's leadership to wipe Israel off of the map. But Iran isn't really any threat, and anyone that thinks they are must be a "war monger", right? I gave Paul a fair shot at the start of the campaign and he lost me right away with his debate performances(I recall especially a line that was borderline apologetic for the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, which he was appropriately booed for). The guy has his head on straight in fiscal policy and most other domestic policies, but he does an Exorcist-style head spin when it comes to foreign policy, and that's a major reason why he doesn't get much support. I'd take him over Obama, but I'm luckily not going to be stuck with that choice.
************************************************************************
Brendan, I'm attempting to address one issue at a time, though they do overlap:
1. You said: "Non-interventionism: Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations...".
**My objection to that is that it leaves the word "entangling" out of the definition (just before "alliances").
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; ..."
~Thomas Jefferson - First Innaugural Address
Source:
**That Jefferson quote sounds *exactly* line Ron Paul. And I highly recommend reading all of the Jefferson quote, URL above.
2. You said: Those definitions would seem to support my statement about Paul's intention to abandon our allies, but to be clear, I'm referring specifically to Israel here. It will be tough to *keep* Israel as an ally if they don't exist anymore, and it is a stated goal of Iran's leadership to wipe Israel off of the map.
** Those definitions *would* "seem" to support your statement, to the weak-minded. But they don't for me. They're empty. They support nothing. "Whaddaya think you're some kind of Jedi or something?" [Star wars reference] ;)
Look at the truth. Look at the testimonies, the public evidence. And don't believe the mainstream media. They obfuscate or outright lie fairly consistently.
"Israel has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. [...] Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr. President. You got bin Laden. Good riddance. [...] Israel is America's unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American. My friends, you don't have to -- you don't need to do nation- building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves. [...] You've been very generous in giving us the tools to defend Israel on our own."
~Benyamin Netanyahu 2011(2:10-4:10)
**Ron Paul And Benyamin Netanyahu appear to be be cut from the same cloth. They both embrace ideas like, "Let's be friends, not meddling in each others' internal affairs." And if you look at the whole video of Netanyahu (URL above) you'll see that he stands proudly and strongly for free speech (even when he's heckled/protested,) freedom of religion, other civil rights, et cetera; just like Ron Paul.
To sum up ... it seems that what Ron Paul wants for Israel is what Israel wants for itself. The only thing that raises my eyebrow is the "giving" part of "generous in giving us the tools to defend Israel on our own", as contrasted with "selling." Free trade is great. *Entangling alliances* are not. But I don't yet know what that deal was. :-/
"You can go back to 1953 when we put the Shah into power, or us supporting Osama Bin Laden. Ah, and radicalizing the Islamics to go after the Soviets. So that comes back as blowback. Our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And ... and this comes back to haunt us. And that's why I have been very attractive, and very supportive of what I call a non-interventionist foreign policy ... mind our own business and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations."
~Ron Paul
1:15-2:40:
**************************************************************************
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
'Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.' [...]
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing.
That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."
**The issue is "internal affairs" of other nations; nation building, bringing democracy ...
3. You said: I gave Paul a fair shot at the start of the campaign and he lost me right away with his debate performances(I recall especially a line that was borderline apologetic for the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, which he was appropriately booed for).
Dedicated to all Neocons that booed Ron Paul
**Let this part sink in. "1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem."
Think hard on that. Do your research and fact-checking.
"Double, double toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble."
"Fair is foul and foul is fair."
~Shakespeare "Macbeth"
There's a reason Shakespeare wrote that. And it's happening today in the US.
4. You said: The guy has his head on straight in fiscal policy and most other domestic policies, but he does an Exorcist-style head spin when it comes to foreign policy, and that's a major reason why he doesn't get much support. I'd take him over Obama, but I'm luckily not going to be stuck with that choice.
**I would argue that it's not *his* head that's spinning, but that he is is focused and principled, as has been demonstrated through 12 terms in Congress with as flawless a voting record as anyone could even hope for. And given the support he's getting, you just might be "stuck with him".
He has more support from milirary personnel than all other candidates *combined* - at least partly because they have first hand, personal knowlege of what's been ordered and in some cases, why it's been ordered. AND they've seen what happens when the US intervenes. They call it "pink mist" and "hairy strawberries".
A young US Army man recently told me a story of driving in a caravan, clearing the road of IED's and such. A minivan full of family-looking folks drove past them. He screamed and honked the horn to get their attention to try to get them to stop. And then the folks drove over a mine or something ... and he saw the pink mist - babies and all. That's not right. And it happened because we were there - trying to "help" or defend Americans' freedom from these morons who accidentally kill more of their own civilians than who they mean to kill. And next we march off to Iran with yet another un-constitutional, internationally illegal, un-declared war?!
He also gets support from LOTS of "conservatives" as well as MASSIVE support from liberals and independents, as evidenced in this Bill Maher interview:
That's because *everyone* wants their own individual liberty. Some neo-cons, the "establishment" (political and media,) and those who don't know quite what he truly stands for (because they watch too much TV) really oppose his message of strict constitutionalism and non-interventionism.
[EDIT] There is also this obstacle for Ron Paul: Far too few US citizens have even the most narrow clue what the US Constitution says or means, let alone *why* it says and means what it does. The Declaration of Independence defines purpose. It's like a "mission statement". The Constitution is like the "by-laws" for the Nation. The Federalist Papers give insight into the reasoning and arguments involved in such a monumental undertaking as creating a free Country.
