65 Responses to “Ron Paul Still A Few Foreign Policy Briefs Behind, But Tempering His Rhetoric”

1. Anonymous
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

   In this instance, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz agrees with Ron Paul:

   “There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed–but it’s huge–is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia.  

   “Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.”

   Source: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair (09 May 2003)

2. Adjoran
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

   NOT an “agreement with Ron Paul” at all.  Wolfie was talking about the potential negotiated withdrawal.  Paul advocates unilateral withdrawal without respect to the security needs of the country or region.

3. Anonymous
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

   The historical reason we occupy Japan is because they lost a world war it was part of the peace treaty.  Everyone knows this.  It is not a reason to stay there two generations later and subsidize their economy at the expense of the American taxpayer.

   Peace at the point of a gun is not peace.

   There is no reason to occupy any Asian country as China would never allow America to wage a land war there again.  They are the new 800lb gorilla.

   If America leaves the region militarily any power vacuum will be filled by the locals and if they get belligerent then we can bomb them like we do the dirt eating brown people.  We don’t need to occupy them anymore.

   Whether you agree or not is immaterial.  We’re broke.  We’re causing world wide inflation and there will be a time in the coming future that will see America pulling back.  Until then, just keep selling as much debt as you can.

4. Anonymous
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

   Wolfowitz and Paul agree precisely on how aspects of our foreign policy influenced al Qaeda; our bases in Saudi Arabia specifically.

   Unilateral?  Do we need the permission of Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and Japan to move our own troops?  Defending our own country, instead of occupying others would be a welcome change.

   I am a veteran and I am voting for Ron Paul.

5. Adjoran
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

   It ought to be sufficient to note that if Ron Paul’s foreign policy had been in effect after WII, there would have been no check on Soviet or Red Chinese expansionism at all.  They could have rolled into Berlin and Seoul, and on from there.  Paul would not defend our interests unless we were directly attacked, so careful communist regimes could avoid engaging a Paulified America until ready to invade – but they wouldn’t have to invade at all.  Siege would crush us in a short period, because the communists would rule the world.

   Under Paul’s insane policies, we would be living in Soviet America today.

   Neither are his “discussions about trimming federal over-reach” sane.  Sure you can pick out some areas of agreement like killing DOE (both of them), but Paul would also abolish the FDA.  FDA wasn’t part of the New Deal alphabet soup of new agencies, it was founded in 1912 because we had tried “Libertarian” food and drug policies for nearly 150 years and they were killing us.  Drugs were sold without prescription, any sort of claim could be made, any sort of poison included in the mix and sold as a “miracle cure.”

   Paul’s Libertarian view believes not only that the federal government has no role in regulating marijuana, but that people should be able to use whatever drugs they wish without a prescription.  It’s insane.

   The longer we take this crazy jackass seriously, the worse for our Party and our Country.

6. Anonymous
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

   Have you read Sun Tzu’s Art of War? 
   If you had you would see the brilliance of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy.Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack.
   Sun Tzu

7. Anonymous
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:50 pm

   Not an oyster born that a starfish can’t drill through. Invincible defense is an illusion. And I’m willing to bet that Sun Tzu didn’t say anything like that.

8. intuitivereason
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:52 pm

   “Ron Paul owes potential voters just a little more detail on how he intends to shore up the status quo.”
    
   I don’t think the phrase ‘shore up the status quo’ exists for Ron Paul.
    
   And to an extent you’ve pointed out the reasons why this is coming to an end in the article.
    
   An arrangement for which the quid pro quo is the purchase of debt can only exist for so long before the situation you are in now is reached. 
    
   Necessarily, if the debt arrangement must come to an end, it is also appropriate that the ‘basing’ arrangements do as well. 
    
    

9. Anonymous
   November 20th, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

   Spot on.

   Japan, Germany and South Korea are wealthy enough to defend themselves.  The U.S. should not be borrowing money from China to subsidize the defense of countries that can defend themselves. 

   Tax payers in Iowa should not be paying for U.S. Infantrymen in Northern Japan.

10. Proof
    November 20th, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

    “900 bases in north of 130 countries” Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, (and his candidacy), there appear to be a multitude of numbers between “900” and “zero”, none of which he is willing to entertain.

11. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

    “…we would be living in Soviet America today…”

    I have never seen someone who professes to be a Republican demonstrate such faith in Communist economics.  You don’t have to read Von Mises to know that the Soviet Union was destined to collapse.

12. Andrew LaChasse
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

    Do you know why, during WWII, the Japanese didn’t make a landed attack on US soil. Lets look at what the Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy, Isoroku Yamamoto, had to say. “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” I think this has always been and will be true. Now would you as an army want to attack a country like that. This is one of the reasons why the second amendment is so important.

13. Andrew LaChasse
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

    Here here sir, I have read most of  Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Ron Paul is spot on. Especially with regard from part II Waging war. One of the lines, among many others, has some great relevance to our current problems, “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”

14. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

    http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Invincibility_lies_in_the_defence%3B_the_possibility_of_victory_in_the_attack./197887/

15. ThePaganTemple
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

    There have never been American troops in Mecca or Medina. Wolfowitz clearly knows better than that, and he probably wasn’t trying to be deceptive, but he should be more careful how he chooses his words.

16. ThePaganTemple
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

    No, if Reagan hadn’t shifted away from the old policy of containment they would still be going. Of course, the pre-Reagan policies helped prop them up.

17. ThePaganTemple
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

    I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but I agree with him that we should shut down MOST of our foreign bases, though damn sure not all of them. We should especially shut down most of our European bases, and most of our Asian ones as well. But we need to maintain a presence in the Persian Gulf and are going to need to for quite some time.

18. Ron Paul Partially Blames US For 9/11 » Pirate's Cove
    November 20th, 2011 @ 6:44 pm

    […] Smitty at The Other McCain writes: Let me form my objection to Paul as a question: when should you ever take your enemy’s […]

19. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

    Like any imperialist empire the Soviet collapse started when they could no longer expand.

20. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

    Such faith in Communist economics.

21. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

    Right. Wolfowitz would never be deceptive.

22. tom279
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

    The US isn’t occupying Japan, Korea, or pretty much any other nation. Our troops are in other nations generally on the grounds of security agreements voluntarily entered into by the involved nations.

    They also aren’t there to assert any control over the nations they are in. US forces based in Japan, for example, are there to counter Chinese, North Korean, and Russian influence as well as protect merchant sea lanes, etc. Under the terms of the current treaty, the Japanese could end the agreement and ask us to remove all military presence with one year’s notice, and we could likewise unilaterally tell the Japanese we are moving out with one year’s notice.

    I don’t think we need troops in all the places we have them and would be happy to close bases that don’t serve our interests. However, in some places, like South Korea and Japan, our forces help maintain regional stability which greatly benefits not only the nations in the region but ourselves as well.

    There are several aspects to that benefit. For those only interested in cold, Machiavellian national interest, we have mutually beneficial trade and financial relationships with nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. If China were allowed to militarily bully these nations, we would become even more dependent on Chinese good will than we are now. Allied nations provide intel on other nations and organizations because it benefits them
    to do so; it wouldn’t if we weren’t a military power there. Allied nations which have a vote in the UN usually follow the US lead in making international law, etc., as well. How much influence do you want to have in deciding international law?

    Bases overseas allow us to make measured responses to attacks. If we don’t have bases, then we either fall back on cruise missile strikes or use nukes. But don’t be fooled; closing all our bases overseas wouldn’t make us any less a target. We will be a target as long as we are rich and powerful, and even beyond that for many who see us as a symbol of evil. If we were military kittens and mired in poverty, there are many today who would want to destroy us just to see the great Satan fall into final collapse.

    I like a lot of what Ron Paul says about domestic issues, but I completely disagree with his foreign policy, and I think in the long run it would greatly damage the US.

23. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

    Dangerous Morons both of you. We don’t occupy Japan or Germany or South Korea. Peace is the absence of war no matter how it is achieved. Having no forward conventional war capability leaves only the nuclear option though I suppose pacifism teaches that we’ve no need of that either.

24. tom279
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

    The historical reason we are in Japan (Occupation ended in 1952) is that it is mutually beneficial for the Japanese and for us.

    Our troops there have nothing to do with maintaining peace between the US and Japan. They are there to counter Chinese, Russian, and North Korean influence in the region, protect sea lanes for merchant shipping, and provide rapid response capabilities in Asia.

    At least a large part of any power vacuum will be filled by China, most likely. Japan is constitutionally prohibited from filling the vacuum. Taiwan and South Korea couldn’t do it for financial reasons. Russia might shift its focus there as well.

25. tom279
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

    Yes, but Yamamoto also counseled against attacking the US at all and he was ignored then as well. The real reason the Japanese never tried to invade the US is that their army was fully engaged in Asia; they didn’t have any more troops to hit us.

26. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:33 pm

    We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Let Japan, Germany and South Korea pay for their own “forward conventional war capability.”

27. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

    “…US isn’t occupying Japan, Korea, or pretty much any other nation…”  Most Iraqis and Afghanis would disagree.

28. tom279
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

    “Most Iraqis and Afghanis would disagree.”

    Have you polled them? And, more to the point, that is only two nations out of how many we have troops in?

    “Let’s try adhering to the Constitution for a change.”

    Oh, I completely agree. What your comment has to do w/ Machiavelli, however, I have no idea.

29. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

    No, I haven’t polled them; and neither will our government.  But I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, so I kind of got the idea that we aren’t entirely wanted there.

30. tom279
    November 20th, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

    Being wanted by the people and being an occupying force are two different things. You could make the case we are occupying Afghanistan, but not Iraq. And this is one country compared to how many?

31. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 8:11 pm

    Please. Find one Iraqi who thinks we are not an occupation force. Why do you think they are kicking us out despite the Obama Administration begging for us to stay.

32. Top Stories from 11/20/11 Super Committee, Krugman, Newt, Ron Paul
    November 20th, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

    […] who want everything they haven’t paid for.Ron Paul Still A Few Foreign Policy Briefs Behind, But Tempering His Rhe…Via Political Class Dismissed, we have Ron Paul on Face […]

33. The Wondering Jew
    November 20th, 2011 @ 11:05 pm

    Paul has been light years ahead of the other candidates in term of both his integrity and his understanding of fiscal and monetary policy.  His foreign policy views are sometime frustratingly oversimplified, but at least they are oversimplified in the right direction, unlike the neocons, who drove the party into the ground. 

34. ThePaganTemple
    November 20th, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

    It’s not faith in communism, its the knowledge that our own government agencies and bureaucrats were propping their sorry asses up, and up until Reagan refused to try to do more than merely contain them.

35. Anonymous
    November 20th, 2011 @ 11:38 pm

    I agree with you on your propping them up point; but Communism would have collapsed whether or not Reagan did anything more than that.

36. Bruce
    November 21st, 2011 @ 12:09 am

    ‘unlike the neocons, who drove the party into the ground.’
    Can you please explain this, WJ? Sorry but the whole ‘neocon’ concept always sounds classic anti-semitism to me. So I don’t get your reference.

    Do you mean ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ of ten years ago, and growing national debt? 

37. Edward
    November 21st, 2011 @ 12:43 am

    Withdraw American forces from South Korea and Japan and I can guarantee you that both South Korea and Japan will be nuclear capable in just a couple years.

    You might want to consider the ramifications of having China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea and Japan all nuclear powers staring at each other and contesting with one another over control of undersea resources and border regions.

    One of the reasons why we have forces distributed the way they are is to reassure allies and neutral countries alike that nobody is going to do anything seriously crazy without consequences.  If we withdraw our forces unilaterally then you can pretty much bet that China is going to get extremely territorial. 

    Even now China is making noises about how Okinawa is actually some long forgotten province of China.  China is also making noises about how northern border areas of India actually belong to southern Tibet and thereby to China.  China is also making very aggressive moves on taking over island(s) that clearly belong to other countries such as Vietnam and Philippines in order to gain control of the surrounding sea and undersea territory.

    And that doesn’t even begin to cover the separation of authority striking both the civilian and military sectors of the Chinese government.  The result of the death of so many older Chinese civilian leaders is that the newer generations don’t have the gravitas to really lead.  A major concern is that the PLA (Army) is beginning to act independently of civilian control and even moving the younger generations of major military families into civilian government for a possible takeover.  A China controlled by civilians doing crazy stuff is bad enough.  A China controlled by a military junta doing crazy stuff is a nightmare.

    When you combine the above with the impending Chinese economic implosion due to unsupportable real estate bubble popping last week along with massive multi-trillion dollar bank insolvencies you’ve got a national leadership that is going to be desperate to take people’s minds off their problems with a small victorious war.

    In addition to that I fully expect we’ll see the Egyptian Army invade Libya for “protection of civilians” with eventual annexation.  Libya is a pesthole that will never be brought under civilian control because the tribal divisions are simply too strong.  But Libya has oil and all that cash stuck in bank accounts.  While Egypt has that very (relatively) strong army, a lot of bills to pay, many hungry mouths to feed and just enough cash to last 3 more months.  So IMO it’s a foregone conclusion that the Egyptian Army will invade Libya.  What kind of insane mess that will cause is anybody’s guess.

38. Edward
    November 21st, 2011 @ 12:46 am

    Ron Paul and the Paulians can always be counted on to bring the fruitcake … and the Crazy.

    Personally I like about 80% of what Ron Paul has to say.  The other 20% makes me think that the sky in the world he inhabits is a completely different color than I’m used to.

39. Edward
    November 21st, 2011 @ 12:50 am

    You go right ahead and point out the invincible defense that will keep our industry going when all of our foreign sources of raw materials, tools, finished & semi-finished goods, oil, natural gas and other such necessary commodities are under the control of enemies.

    Invincible defense is possible if you’re in a fort.  The only problem is that only part that has that invincible defense is … the fort.  The fort doesn’t prevent the enemy from laying the rest of the country, or planet, to waste.

    Which is pretty much what the Mongols did to the Chinese.

    So much for Sun Tzu.

40. Bruce
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:07 am

    I translate classical Mandarin but I’d have to look that up. Anyway he lived in an age of fortress kingdoms, surrounded by impregnable walls. The Great Wall itself did not prevent invasion of China by ‘barbarians’. So he was proved wrong when kingdoms grew beyond the city-states he knew. And more recently the Cold War put an end to traditional ideas of defence. 

41. Bruce
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:21 am

    There was also a ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’ in Japan, or at least someone willing to die before surrender. True, no one wanted to fight them at that level. 

    But the US beat them anyway. By taking the fight to another level. During the Cold Ware we understood that a ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’ was not enough. Sadly that’s now all being forgotten. 

42. Adjoran
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:35 am

    Thank you for your service.

    You are still wrong, though.  Agreement on one effect of a policy is not agreement on all aspects of it.  I bet Wolfowitz defends the deployment of troops there to this day.  Ron Paul would have let Saddam keep Kuwait.

43. Adjoran
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:39 am

    I have no faith in communism, but I know they had effective military power and rolled over any territory where they were unopposed.  Without our presence in Europe and Korea, they would have taken the territory, likewise the Middle East. 

    Paul’s policies would have led to our destruction.  Bipartisan commitment to international pursuit of our security and that of our allies  led to our victory without a nuclear war.  

44. Adjoran
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:40 am

    Carter was the weak one, but our bipartisan policy of engagement and active resistance from Truman to Reagan was the only thing that restrained the Soviet Empire’s lust to expand.

45. Adjoran
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:43 am

    I don’t disagree with shutting down a lot of our foreign bases, especially those whose contribution to our national security was solely in restraining the Soviets in the Cold War. 

    That does not change the fact that Paul would not have allowed those bases at the time they WERE necessary, either.  That’s what makes him insanely and dangerously weak.

46. Adjoran
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:45 am

    So, Sun Tzu is the be-all and end-all for you on foreign policy in modern times, then?

    You sound like an fan.

47. Adjoran
    November 21st, 2011 @ 2:48 am

    If we aren’t adhering to the Constitution, file suit in federal court.  If you are correct, you will win.

    Remember the Courts are charged with resolving “disputes arising under this Constitution,” so it is up to them, right?  I mean, you DO support the whole Constitution, right?  Not just the clauses you like, right?

48. Bruce
    November 21st, 2011 @ 3:40 am

    There is no ‘Afghanistan’ only a bunch of warring tribes on land wanted historically by Greece, Persia, Russia, Great Britain, and now Pakistan. 

    ‘Iraq’ got a false start from British-created mess and needed a reboot. Otherwise a ‘crash’ which could have dragged us (I am not an American.) into a vast apocalyptic ‘Califate’ war had threatened. Now pretty much averted, thanks to sacrifices of all our troops, and others in history who fought for a similar goal over the centuries – peace. We remember with gratitude. 

    It was necessary. It was generally well done. Probably Afghan should now be ditched. I know hundreds of people, non-Americans, who did exactly what you, Jay, did. But have very different impressions of what is going on. Either they are all wrong, or you need to just take a few steps back and consider there may be much more to this than your simplistic quips. 

    Of course you can vote for whoever you like, that is your right. 

49. Bruce
    November 21st, 2011 @ 4:07 am

    PS. Can I just add my own crazy theory, totally impractical. As a non-American mind you, I don’t see why the USA must sacrifice to protect Saudis, only to get screwed by them. 

    ‘Saudi Arabia’ and all its oil rightfully belong to the US who fought to protect it all, if there’s any justice, in my thinking. 

    Booty is the right of the victor. The USA has been too nice to its enemies. Yes it would set a bad example and all hell might break out in Asia with China and Japan etc.

    But I don’t see why mid eastern oil doesn’t belong to the US, lock stock and barrel. 

    My 2 cents worth. Thankyou. 

50. Anonymous
    November 21st, 2011 @ 4:52 am

    And the Iraqis might have over thrown him themselves; just like they did in Egypt.

About

This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin

• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML