Paul's Foreign Policy (A Question)

Mao and Stalin were in actuality much more heinous than Hitler... estimated to have killed over 100 million combined. Stalin starved to death nearly 8 million people in the Ukraine and filmed it to boot. And this occurred PRIOR to Hitler's rise to power.

North Korea has been starving their people for years. Should we invade? South Korea wants us out of the region so they can work on reuniting with their kin and blood relatives.

Look what happened when we "helped" Somalia. Look what happened when came to the assistance of Vietnam and Korea.

People in a community have to work out their own self-governance. If somebody else from the outside does it you always end with an unnatural balance of power (which WILL re-balance itself later -- often in an uglier fashion).

Trying to be Vietnam's and Korea's saviour created the economic malaise in the 1970's for the US. And it took 40 years of LEAVING THEM ALONE for them to get back up on their feet. And guess what? They have moved towards markets and capitalism in our absence.

If American's feel there is a injustice somehwere, then they should donate or volunteer to the organization that will help the victims the best. Join the peace corps, red cross or something. Taking the American peoples tax money and spending against the majorities choice, is not really freedom. It's black and white, no grey area.

Actually, we were very non interventionist towards what was happening in Germany. It took Japan to get us invloved in the war...

The irony is, Bush and the neo-cons refer to the Middle East as "Islamo-fascist," implying we should declare war on all "fascist" and not do trade with them. Yet, we borrow 10 Billion dollars from iron curtain China. You know, it would look less hypocritical if our best friend wasn't a communist...

go personally to the UN, and tell them unless you start taking serious action, on these countries who are immorally violating human rights, we are pulling out of the UN and you can take your business elsewhere. This would force them to become the violators, and be an easy out. If they do take action, he would make it as a donation, and a tax deduction if people wanted to take part, but the federal funding would be cut off. If we were to become a non-interventionist nation, there would be charitble action groups, to show how Americans really are. The other countries see us giving money to their leaders, which they become rich and powerful, while the people virtually get nothing from it. Thus, they believe America is controlling their poverty, which brings the hatred on us. If people around the world trully see how America really is, they will stand up and force their leaders to be like us. There will be no reason for another Hitleresk type of person.

...is it worth it? We cannot keep helping ppl who won't help themselves period. As for the humanitarian aide, Ron Paul is absolutely correct and history proves his point, the vast majority of humanitarian never reach the ppl it's meant for it usually goes to the governments to feed their armies or the warlords and their guerrilla groups It rarely makes in the hands of civilians who need it most. Also, with more of our own money in our own pockets would allow us Americans as a ppl to be more charitable and could help. I agree with Ron Paul when he says the Federal Government should not intervene, why is always America that should step up to the plate only to be condemned in the end. Our Interference in World Affairs has almost completely destroyed our reputation around the world and has increased the hatred towards us from around the globe.

as for the Hitler example, that is different and I'm sure Dr. Ron Paul, depending on what actually is happening, would act accordingly and in the best interests of America.

----------------------------------------------------------------
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

there savages I don't hear nothing from you do gooders about the pygmies eaten .The pygmies have been hunted like animals

DR Congo pygmies appeal to UN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h...

they need to stand up for themselfs they can't fight back against camel mounted saveges stop worrying about other lands worry about your own stop being brainwashed by communists

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent" Thomas Jefferson

Vote RON PAUL 2008
___________
(you gave the example)
... if another Hitler was to come to power and begin killing thousands of his own citizens, how would President Paul react?

I think RON PAUL might react by running for President --

Think about it.

You have presented two different issues: a humanitarian crisis and a national security crisis.

Darfur presents no possible threat to US National Security. Therefore, it is not a proper use of government to force Americans to send money or troops to Darfur. However, you would be free to send your own money or actually get on a plane and go there to try and help.

The rise of a violent and aggressive world power like Nazi Germany presents another question: is it a direct and immediate threat to US National Security? If not, then once again it will be up to you if you want to take individual action. If so, then Congress needs to declare war. I think this should only be done in response to an actual attack or an obvious imminent attack - ie. troops amassing on the border. Otherwise, our government stays out.

First, during President Paul's 2 terms in office we will be recuperating from 100 years of printing money out of thin air :) We are more than flat broke, we are 9 trillion dollars in the hole, not counting social security or medicare. Plop those costs in and it's pushing 60 Trillion bucks. We don't have the MONEY to intervene anywhere and we can no longer print it out of thin air to do so. Also, it is not our obligation to go and intervene in other nations affairs. Hell, ww2 was going on for a few years before we got attacked. We were selling goods to everybody participating, both Axis and Allies!

I think that an important thing to note about Libertarian foreign policy (In general) is that foreign aid and stuff is allowed, but it must be voluntary. The government should not tax its people nearly as much as we are taxed now so that we can decide what we do with our money. This includes deciding to send relief to refugees in Sudan. It can also mean free health care for the uninsured, or food for the poor. And if you think governments can afford more, think about if the 30% of your income that goes to the government were spend how you thought it should. Well, you could guarantee that your money went to stem cell research, Darfur, etc. and if enough people care then they should be getting more help not less. Obviously this requires a different attitude about how charity in society functions, but I believe that if you cannot empower enough individuals to exact change, then the change is not supposed to happen yet (Even if it turns out it should have).

U.S. military forces should not be sent to Darfur in my opinion. Even if they would help, it shouldn't be our position to interfere in other world conflicts. That said, if enough Americans believe the military needs to be sent there, then you can focus your aid money on hiring a private military group to fight.

I tend to agree with the other posts except that the other government(s) would need to ASK for some help and not expect us to just barge in and start kicking a**. Remember the tsunami in 2004? Folks all over the world were incensed that we did not contribute MORE than we did. Whether or not that was the truth, given our MSM's reporting policies, it was an insult to those of us that made a contribution to help then only to be rebuffed for not doing more!

Our media is not reporting all of the stories, as we so well know, but the whole world is looking for a handout from the US in times like this and we help them because we are EXPECTED to and not because they ask for it!

It is ridiculous. Non-interventionist is NOT isolationist.

why do you worry about Darfur & China...when we have Mississippi and Loiusiana to rebuild. All the burned homes in California. Bridges to rebuild that just collapsed. and i'm sure that Florida has still not fully recovered from the hurricanes yet. now, if you wish to give to a charity for Darfur, that's fine. it's your money. but do not use the government to steal my money and do what you want to do with it. that is thievery...but then again...special interest people do not care about "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL...".

Unfortunately, many in the USA have problems with "standing idly by" when crap happens elsewhere in the world. The USA should act in a manner of self-preservation and attack only when its own life and liberty is under threat. Otherwise, it's just a blood trade. It makes no sense for me to go send my son to die for some stranger halfway around the world because of a conflict they're having. What is the point of liberty and life if I have to throw it away to save someone else? If someone in this country wants to go risk their life to save people in darfur, let them. Nothing is stopping them. Ask anyone who supports that why they're not doing it. They'll quickly say "oh, I'm too busy, I just think it's the military's duty" and they obviously have no family in the military. It's the same argument as if the government were to take away all money and material wealth away from you that it deems unnecessary to your survival, because there are children somewhere else in the world that are starving. Same interventionist argument, that refuses to accept that other people when under threat must have the initiative not to rely on someone 6000 miles away to help them. Our forefathers sure as hell didn't think that way, and thank god.

The important part of the deal is that if Congress has to make the ultimate decision, then the issue will be or should be properly debated and the congress is ultimately responsible. Only then would "we" as a people make the decision to go in and "we" the people bare the responsiblity for the outcome. Not just blame a few neocons at the top who acted on our behalf.

Funny, there is a United Nations even without us but for some strange reason, they haven't done sh*t about Darfur. Why is that?

What does the Constitution Say?

And what is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

We can not be the worlds police.

However, if it is in America's national security interest. For real and not just the big oil companies, etc. Then Congress would have to act in accordance with the COTUS.

And thank God we are no longer part of the United Nations. :)

...and one that I believe has been answered. Dr. P did address this, at least in terms of the first gulf war when he discussed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, where the argument was that this was an issue that should have been left to the region, and if that had been the case, it is very possible that Saddam would have been taken care of back then.

Any rise to power of a dictator with imperial ambitions is a regional conflict before becoming an international conflict, thus if our guiding philosophy was one of non-intervention, we would allow countries in the region to act first. Only when it becomes a threat to OUR national security do we act militarily, for that should be the last solution we turn to.

Ron Paul is not against war. In fact he was drafted and served as a flight surgeon. And unfortunately such atrocities as immoral human rights violation happen when countries develop. Think about what USA did to the Native Americans, or to Mexico when we took their lands after the Mexican American war. Think about the civil war where we were killing each other. Where would USA be now if other countries interfered. If other countries did interfere USA would probably be still a 3rd world country or split into a south and north USA and occupied by other countries. And that is what we are doing to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
In Afghanistan the Taliban has reclaimed power, and Iraq is in such a bad shape that the legislature there has asked the USA to leave so that they can solve their own problems. The only person in Iraq asking the USA to stay is the president of Iraq, who was put in power by the US government. Who are we to tell other countries what to do when we are destroying other nations, and supporting dictators until they go against us.

Now back to the original topic. If a threat is so severe such as another Hitler, the proposition for war can always go through congress. Because it is congress' power to declare war. It is in the constitution. The president cannot go to war without congress' approval. And that is what Ron Paul as strict constitutionalist wants to follow. The war on Iraq was never formally declared, which is why he is against it. And you know what, it will never be formally declared because the people and congress are against it. So you see if such atrocities in other countries happen that USA wants to interfere and declare war, then they can. But chances are like in this case, that the people of USA does not want to go to war or get involved in other countries affairs.

this is a question that many Americans would ask, but it's based on the perception that these dictators spring up in a vacuum and the US, which embodies goodness and justice, must intervene to stop them. This is exactly why Americans supported the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Americans want to believe this is the truth, and for that reason Ron Paul's message has trouble getting through IMO.

But, this is not based on a sound analysis of history. Saddam was a lacky for the CIA before he took power there, and the US supported him, even sold him biological agents and helicopters during the 80's. Hitler recieved help and financing from Rockefeller (Standard Oil) and Averrel & E. Rolland Harriman (W. A. Harriman / Union Banking Corp), while Paul Warburg's brother Max used his directorship at I.G. Farben in Germany to help manage this support. These were the same people who put together the Federal Reserve system, and wanted a war. This isn't conjecture, or a conspiracy theory - these are facts, facts which for obvious reasons are never talked about or taught in our schools.

To me the most dangerous threat to global security is America's tendency to back oppressive govenments in order to clear the way for US and multi-national corporations to fleece the third world of its labor and natural resources ... Indonesia is an exellent case in point, Suharto's troops killed at least half a million people in the '65 coup which propelled him to power, with CIA and US backing and help. This is also well documented. This paved the way for Indonesia becoming the cash-cow for oil companies and clothing manufacturers that it remains to this day - all at great suffering and loss to Indonesia and its people.
I recommend watching John Pilger's 'Globalization: New Rulers of The World' http://video.google.com/v...

Curtailing the power of the Federal Reserve and the military-industrial complex, and adhering to the non-interventionist foreign policy that the founders recommended is the best way to insure peace and prosperity in the world.

The major stockholders of big multi-national corporations and of the Federal Reserve will not be so happy though. They have become quite rich as a result of all of this misery over past decades.

It would amaze and shock most people to know that we have, in one way or another, been intervening in Iraq not for the last 18 years, but for the last 87 years. In fact, our country has intervened in over 200 countries for the last 110 years....the question is has it made us or the world any safer and has it produced beneficial results? Well, just look at the world for the answer.

World War I is a perfect example of the fabric of history being altered by our intervention into the war. At the time of the entry of the United States, both sides of the conflict we rapidly depleting their resources, drained of their ability to wage war and ready to sue for peace. The war to end all wars could have had a totally different outcome had the United States refrained from listening to our domestic war drummers and those who would eventually benefit from our entry into the conflict. Besides the actual monetary costs of the war, the social cost is hard to comprehend in our present time; whole societal influences were altered beyond recognition. Empires were broken apart, new nations were born from the despair and national influences were morphed into artificial boundaries. The war set the stage for not only the eventual break-up of the British Empire, but the generation of ethnic and religious sectarianism that had been more or less subdued under the old order. Most of the nations within the region were devastated for over a generation and such devastation helped set the stage for the massive struggle called WWII.

We rarely think of the differences in the world had we not been pushed into war by the war propagandist, profiteers and political influence peddlers. If we had not entered the war, both sides would have settled back into a world, while scared, would have been far safer than the one our victory created. Upon our victory, the fabric of history was severely distorted, everything changed and the balance of power shifted enormously. With victory came the end of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires; this led to the formation of entirely new countries throughout Europe and the Middle East. It also marked a great transference of colonies into the hands of other colonialist powers, just as oppressive as the former masters.

With that victory came some of the harshest war reparations visited upon a defeated nation. Germany and its allies became subjugated to the wrath of the victors and under that wrath were sown the seeds of a future dictator who exploited the humiliation of Germany into a cause of extreme nationalistic pride and a taste for revenge.

The stage that Hitler exploited would have never been set had the United States remained neutral, as it should have, during the latter part of the war. The powers involved would have been forced into a peace agreement due to each side’s inability to provide resources to maintain their respective war efforts. The world that was would have slumbered back into its decaying imperialism, eventually giving way to a natural evolution of nationalities and newly formed nations. The artificial borders created in the Middle East by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire would have been less likely to have been the future cause of continual conflict and strife as it is today.

Imagine for instance, for a moment, if you will, the world without Hitler. Certainly, this is pure supposition, but when you consider the possibilities what that the one act of U.S. intervention nearing the end of WWI did and how it drastically altered the weave of history, the conclusion that the world would be a very different place is more than a flight of fancy. As stated earlier, a lonely, dejected artist named Adolf Hitler would have had no fuel for his nationalistic incitements, Germany would have gradually reentered the community of nations and WWI, as we know it, would have never happened. Think of it, the European Jews and all their culture would have continued to flourish; there would have been no concentration camps, no gas chambers and 6 million Jews would have lived to propagate their lineage. The creation of the State of Israel would have never been forcefully imposed upon the Muslim nations of the Middle East and thus the current conflict would not exist in its present form.

The British would have never gained control over vast regions of the Middle East, and the imposition of artificial borders throughout the area would not be the cause of numerous ethnic disturbances over territories. Although the nationalistic fever began to sweep throughout the region during the late 19th Century, that fever was only amplified by the early 20th Century events of WWI.

The Soviet Union would have never had the opportunity to impose the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe without the events of WWII. The massive arms race, the nuclear threat and cold war would have had no stage on which to form and the incredible waste in manpower and funds would have been averted into more productive avenues. There are enough examples of the unintended consequences of our actions to fill volumes on the subject.

Interventions always have consequences and we rarely have the foresight to determine if those consequences produce far more danger than if the interventions never occur in the first place. The leaders of this country must once again regain the wisdom of the Founders and refrain from the use of intervention an ideological tool. We must come to understand that such interventions have the potential of drastically changing not only the fabric of our history, but also the fabric of our future. It has been proven that we have lacked that wisdom over the decades; it is time to stop the course that leads to dangerous unintentional consequences.

As harsh as it may sound and I am sure heartless too, but it is the responsibility of the people of other nations to rise up in revolution, if necessary, to defend their own rights, their liberty and their freedom, but it is neither our place nor our right to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations, even when those nations treat their people in despicable ways. We would hopefully have enough influence over such nations because we have built honest relationships with them and substantial trade to sway the manner in which they treated their citizens, but once again, we are not well equipped to be either the Social Worker or the Police of the world.

George Washington said: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

John Quincy Adams stated it best when he said: "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Washington also said: "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

to meddle in the affiars of other countries. That is the libertarian ideal. Now, if there is a country invading another, and they are an ally (or at least not an enemy), then a military option is available. This is what it means to be a "non-interventionist". You just don't get involved... period.

Now... in my opinion... if we had the money to go around and police the world, things might be different. If we had leaders with enough sense... who weren't already bought and paid for... then we wouldn't have our troops spread out all over the world where they AREN'T needed (like Iraq). Then maybe it would be ok to send the troops where they truly are needed. The libertarian "non-interventionist" foreign policy has it's draw-backs... but right now it is exactly what we need. We are spread too thin and we're spending money and military resources in the wrong parts of the world.

If we had enacted Dr. Paul's policies on the economy a long time ago, and everyone had plenty of money (since the IRS wouldn't be taking it all), and the government wasn't financially broke (because it had a sound currency)... then we could provide money and aid to organizations who might want to do something about it... like maybe the U.N. or something. But, of course, I wouldn't trust them either. See, the problem is corruption in government... here and abroad. Most aid money ends up in the hands of a dictator somewhere. Screwed up world we live in.

He would have congress decide at what point we get involved.

If they asked for our help we could offer advice (I heard him say that once.)

When you say Hitler are you reffering to George W. Bush. Ya I think we should stand up to him, he's killing innocent muslims for their oil.