I Voted Today

[GenSeneca]

I'd venture to say two things:
- the dope thing
- the isolationist thing

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]​

Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.​

​

The fact that interventionism has become the default US foreign policy position, and that opposition to these policies are wrongly labeled as isolationist in order to be riduclued and thereby dismissed, should give the US public great cause for concern about the direction our country is heading.

Lybia is the most recent example of US intervention, a situation where the security of the US was not being threatened and where US national interests were not at stake. Ron Paul opposed military intervention into Lybia, weren't you also opposed? Doesn't that make you an "isolationist"? It's time we recognize that a policy of non-intervention is not isolationism, non-interventionism is simply based on the principle that the US should only intervene when absolutely necessary for the self defense of the country.

 

[dogtowner]

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]​

Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.​

​

The fact that interventionism has become the default US foreign policy position, and that opposition to these policies are wrongly labeled as isolationist in order to be riduclued and thereby dismissed, should give the US public great cause for concern about the direction our country is heading.

Lybia is the most recent example of US intervention, a situation where the security of the US was not being threatened and where US national interests were not at stake. Ron Paul opposed military intervention into Lybia, weren't you also opposed? Doesn't that make you an "isolationist"? It's time we recognize that a policy of non-intervention is not isolationism, non-interventionism is simply based on the principle that the US should only intervene when absolutely necessary for the self defense of the country.

Lybia was clearly was a major breech and yes I was against how it was approached.

He also had problems with Iraq and Afghanistan
he's far closer to isolationist than I can abide.

 

[steveox]

Ron Paul is against the death penalty which im for. I think if you kill somebody you should die too.

 

[GenSeneca]

Lybia was clearly was a major breech and yes I was against how it was approached.

Doesn't that make you an Isolationist?

He also had problems with Iraq and Afghanistan

I didn't want to go into Iraq either and I certainly do not support nation building...

What is it about nation building that you find so appealing?

As for the second link, that's just a hit-piece based on a former staffers unverified/unverifiable claims...

Afghanistan​

Paul voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[310] considering that it was a response to the September 11 attacks. But over the years even though he initially supported the War in Afghanistan, Paul also advocates withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because he believes a decade of war in Afghanistan is enough.​

Paul also stated,​

“There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”​

​

Paul did support the invasion of Afghanistan but withdrew his support when the mission changed from killing or capturing those responsible to nation building and spreading "democracy" in the region. I happen to agree with him on all counts.

he's far closer to isolationist than I can abide.

What is the guiding principle you believe should be applied when considering military action?

 

[dogtowner]

Doesn't that make you an Isolationist?

nope. makes me demand that laws be followed and consent given as opposed to just ignoring that these requirements be followed.

I didn't want to go into Iraq either and I certainly do not support nation building...

What is it about nation building that you find so appealing?

As for the second link, that's just a hit-piece based on a former staffers unverified/unverifiable claims...

Afghanistan​

Paul voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[310] considering that it was a response to the September 11 attacks. But over the years even though he initially supported the War in Afghanistan, Paul also advocates withdrawing troops from Afghanistan because he believes a decade of war in Afghanistan is enough.​

Paul also stated,​

“There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”​

​

Paul did support the invasion of Afghanistan but withdrew his support when the mission changed from killing or capturing those responsible to nation building and spreading "democracy" in the region. I happen to agree with him on all counts.


What is the guiding principle you believe should be applied when considering military action?

when the nation is attacked (or those nations we have a reciprocal agreement with ala NATO) or its vital interests. Iraq and Afghanistan qualify, Lybia does not, Kosovo does not, Mogadishu does not.

now if the C-I-C can make a case for some sort of humanitarian cause that Congress will accept then at least its been decided the right way.