Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
We abandoned Iran? Abandon our allies? Like who? Military dictatorship Pakistan or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
I don't understand how we claim to promote democracy then we send billions to non democratic governments around the world.
Yes, we abandoned Iran, or were you not paying attention in 1979? We probably never go to war with Iraq (twice) if Carter does not abandon Iran because we would then have been sending weapons to the Shah, who would have at least weakened Saddam's forces.
To address the second part, sometimes you have to ally yourselves with governments who are different from your own to achieve the most good. An example comes from the Revolutionary War when the democratic United States allied with Catholic monarchy France. We need allies in that region, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KloD
What makes Hunter an authority on anything? Remember this Chaz, your debating with a guy who is critical of Paul's foreign policy ideas, yet is calling Huckabee (who's the most ignorant of all candidates on foreign policy) the best qualified.
He's not an authority on anything. But it says something that a man who is in the race doesn't even consider Ron Paul a threat to his slim chance.
Plus, I never said Huckabee was the best on foreign policy. I just said he's my candidate. He may not be the best on foreign policy (he's not the most ignorant, that title belongs to Paul), but he provides the best total packages of the candidates in my opinion.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Yes, we abandoned Iran, or were you not paying attention in 1979? We probably never go to war with Iraq (twice) if Carter does not abandon Iran because we would then have been sending weapons to the Shah, who would have at least weakened Saddam's forces.
To address the second part, sometimes you have to ally yourselves with governments who are different from your own to achieve the most good. An example comes from the Revolutionary War when the democratic United States allied with Catholic monarchy France. We need allies in that region, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Ah, yes. Divide and conquer. If only we had done more to keep authoritarian regimes in power we could better protect freedom and democracy.
You mean 1979's hostage crisis, the blowback from 25 years before when we installed the Shah?
Were you not paying attention in 1953?
Our foreign policy is a mess.
Yet, the Shah could have put the rebellion down, but Carter told him not to. The Shah trusted the United States to the end, and we turned our back on him. That "blowback" could easily have been avoided.
When we cozy up to and support Authoritarian dictators like the Shaw and Musharraf we do so at our own peril and detriment. This is the thing that these so called conservatives just can't grasp. They think America has the duty and right to be the policeman or bully of the world and to reshape the world in our image by force. Then they act surprised when people would be pissed off enough to blow us up. The problem isn't the violent radical elements, they can be met with force if need be. The real danger is when our own policies give the the lager populations of other countries reason to give those violent radicals their ear and sympathy.
The idea of making the world safe for democracy is a liberal progressive policy promoted by Woodrow Wilson. I think it has been to our detriment since that time and our entry into WWI if not earlier. How modern "conservatives" have adopted it as their own is beyond me.
The following to me is the true spirit of America and should be the guide for our foreign policy. It doesn't mean that we don't defend ourselves and it doesn't mean that we don't keep a strong defense.
Quote:
John Quincy Adams 1821
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings[/b], as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not 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.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[ America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
Brilliant words!
It is a shame that so few Americans hear them, nor understand them today...
"that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication..."
Does the above scenario sound at all familiar?
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
It is a shame that so few Americans hear them, nor understand them today...
"that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication..."
Does the above scenario sound at all familiar?
Funny how smart those powder wigs made those ol' coots.
__________________
I'm the anti-TNT. I don't do drama.
Ron Paul Is the First 'Long Tail' Candidate. He Won't Be the Last.
Andrew Romano Illustration by Alex Nabaum for Newsweek
From the Dec. 31, 2007 - Jan. 7, 2008 issue of NEWSWEEK
It's May 1988, and the slender 53-year-old obstetrician (and former four-term congressman) has just arrived at Seattle airport. Only three supporters are waiting. Later today, he'll address a handful of students at the University of Washington; tomorrow's speech at nearby Whitman College will draw 50. "The problem we have," he says, "is not having the opportunity to get the message out." In the end, he'll raise $2 million and win 0.4 percent of the popular vote. "Ron Paul is running for the presidency," the Los Angeles Times will report. "Not many people know that. Not many people care."
Not anymore. Two decades after his listless Libertarian bid, Paul, now back in Congress and campaigning as a Republican, has become a political phenomenon—a transformation that may signal a shift away from the two-sizes-fitall categories of "Democrat" and "Republican" and toward a more personalized, motley politics.
He may be America's first "long tail" candidate. Popularized by Wired editor Chris Anderson, the long tail is premised on the idea that before the Web, it wasn't always easy to find a deep selection of, say, literary fiction at the local bookstore beyond the few best sellers the big publishers were pushing. Mass culture still dominates, but retailers now realize they can also make money by selling an ever-expanding selection of less-popular niche products from the "long tail" of the culture to smaller numbers of people. It's the difference between Amazon.com's selling a million copies of "The Da Vinci Code," or selling just five copies each of 200,000 backlist titles. Either way, it moves a million books.
This idea is now playing a part in our politics, where Paul's recent rise reflects the same dynamics. In 1988 his libertarian message—reduce government at home, resist military meddling abroad, restore the gold standard—went unheard. Today, it's spreading quickly online and connecting activists across the country, a few people at a time. Paul may still be the longest of long shots. But he's a long shot who can lure 5,000 supporters to his rallies and more than triple his entire '88 war chest in a single $6.6 million day. That's a whole new level of high-passion, low-polling politics—and in a long-tail world, others are bound to follow. "Ron Paul is the harbinger," says Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian magazine Reason. "Just as the major entertainment companies are producing far more varied and individualized fare, I think we're going to see more and more political candidates who are more interesting in and of themselves but deliver smaller and smaller numbers."
Over the decades, Americans have become increasingly unhappy about having to cram themselves into one of two "big box" parties. Seven of the last 10 elections were won with less than 51 percent of the vote; in three of the last four, no candidate won a majority. Today, two thirds of U.S. adults (and a full three quarters of 18- to 30-year olds) say they would consider voting for an independent candidate in the next election. The rise of Howard Dean (another anti-establishment Web phenom) and the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis mirrored this breakdown of consensus; 2008's fragmented Republican field is further proof. "The long tail is not the political center," economist Arnold Kling has said. "It is not a third party waiting to form. It is not a coalition. It is not a 'silent majority' of either the right or left. It is simply every variety of political belief that does not fit within the two major parties." As the Web allows niche voters to form communities, raise money and get heard, it's inevitable that the major-party machines will clash with—and ultimately accommodate—the individualized constituencies they're struggling to serve.
Unlike their predecessors, the next generation of niche politicians won't necessarily choose the third-party route. Instead, tomorrow's most successful narrowcasters will likely run as major-party candidates in the primaries, where widely seen debates and easy ballot access will bring exposure and credibility. (Think Tom Tancredo.) "You will get further inside the primaries than you will ever get as a third-party candidate," says Micah Sifry, author of "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America" and cofounder of TechPresident.com, a site that tracks online politics. Don't expect one of these Facebook-friendly insurgents to move into the White House any time soon. America is still a majority-rule, winner-take-all country—online and off. But as they proliferate, their niche concerns and vocal supporters will demand unprecedented attention.
Is that necessarily a good thing? The risk, says Sifry, is that as it "becomes easier and easier to create salient, organized minorities" around key issues, "we may arrive at an even more stalemated politics, where every-one has enough of a voice to stymie everything." But Gillespie argues the reward is a more responsive government. "Being just a Republican or just a Democrat no longer gets at what people are about," he says. "In order for a Mitt Romney to gain traction in a traditional party, he's going to have to mine the more marginal candidates for ideas and support." Paulites, take heart. Sadly, the gold standard isn't coming back. But the days of "not having the opportunity to get the message out"? Those are gone for good, too.
Thanks for that, Linder. My evening is now ruined.
If it makes you feel any better, it was one of those homemade ones on a big sheet, so not necessarily representative of Ron Paul's beliefs. I hear he's rooting for the Giants...
GO
Illustration by Alex Nabaum for Newsweek
dreamcastrocks--My Hero!!
