04-14-2010, 06:42 PM
I see an awful lot of 'Ron Paul's foreign policy is insane' comments, but no real discussion on why exactly it's insane.
From a conservative prospective you have big government and small government. Republicans want big government when it comes to foreign policy, military spending, and military presence abroad. Democrats want big government when it comes to welfare and nannyism. Conservatives should not want either of these things, yet we have both.
Here's some facts about current U.S. foreign affairs:
We have 700 military installations abroad in 120 countries. We are the only nation I know of besides Great Britain to have military installations on foreign soil. Britain has only two battalions permanently installed outside of her sovereign territory, and these battalions are assigned to U.K. protectorates (Bermuda, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands). Compare that to the 250 or so major military installations within the continental U.S.
U.S. projected 'Defense' spending for FY 2010 is $1.2 trillion
U.S. Foreign Aid Budget 2010: $116 Billion
U.S. Foreign Military Aid to Israel only: $333 Million
In a country with nearly 20% real unemployment, just barely hinting at a possibility of recovery from an economic meltdown, with tens of trillions in unfunded entitlements and promises, we need to cut some of this. It absolutely has to happen. Ron Paul's views on foreign policy may not be popular, but the tough, necessary decisions never are popular. Not to mention our open southern border is erupting with war, and there isn't a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the job down here.
When you remove the emotion and look at the numbers, a more humble foreign policy and military makes sense. Even if we cut our bases abroad in half, and our military budget back down to FY 2003 levels, we will save almost $.7 trillion, and still be the dominant military power of the earth. So forget the rhetoric and think about frugality for a few moments.
Edit: I'm not implying that Ron Paul's idea of foreign policy is spot on. I'm just saying that a Ron Paul Lite approach is necessary for our financial security."In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense
04-14-2010, 10:18 PM
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
I think he's refering to Paul's assertation that the War in Iraq/Terror was illegal. when he said that crap he got thrown into the same boat as the nutjobs on the left. Autherization was given TWICE to go in by Congress.
04-14-2010, 10:35 PMAt least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from policemen, that news is not something that happens to other people. ~ Robert Heinlein
You Say The Battle Is Over
04-14-2010, 10:44 PMAt least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from policemen, that news is not something that happens to other people. ~ Robert Heinlein
You Say The Battle Is Over
04-14-2010, 10:49 PM
BEYOND THAT - How many other nations are there out there that would love to expand their influence and power by filling the void we would leave behind? CHINA anyone? And then when China starts spreading communism - or just flat out taking over countries - Mongolia anyone? - Or just plain manipulates economically or otherwise countries into attacking us - what then?Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|