To what degree are we talking about non interventionism though? No political intervention? No armed intervention? Are we talking about no intervention in any sense?

Unless we are talking about the latter, leaving world organizations and treaties doesn't make any sense. And if you ask me, non interventionism is a cop out anyways. "If we turn a blind eye, everything will fix itself". Non interventionism might have worked back in 1776 (even though the US has never fully practiced it), but it certainly doesn't work now in our interconnected, interdependent world.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I understand what he's saying, but I still don't see him as the force who will bring us together. I think he'll win a lot of people in the West, and perhaps some college students, but some of his ideas are not realistic in this country....not as it has been in the past 100 years or so. And certainly not realistic in this world either.

So what's our best option then? Just give up and let corrupt figureheads (for the international bankers) maintain RULE OVER US while merging the US, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union or should we try to salvage what's left of our Constitutional Republic by allowing Ron Paul to LEAD our country back to a path of freedom?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX To what degree are we talking about non interventionism though? No political intervention? No armed intervention? Are we talking about no intervention in any sense? Unless we are talking about the latter, leaving world organizations and treaties doesn't make any sense. And if you ask me, non interventionism is a cop out anyways. "If we turn a blind eye, everything will fix itself". Non interventionism might have worked back in 1776 (even though the US has never fully practiced it), but it certainly doesn't work now in our interconnected, interdependent world.

I think that it really all boils down to our staying out of the entangling alliances that we were so warned about.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think that it really all boils down to our staying out of the entangling alliances that we were so warned about.

So ignore the rest of the world because it is easier to conduct business when you only have to consider one opinion? You mind moving the US to the moon then? That way you don't have to get into 'entangling alliances' with these other meddlesome countries that also happen to be located in this planet.

I love it how he complains about the US sending 60million to UNESCO. He complains how the US is helping fund these agencies that help other people. Can you imagine the horror? Now I am not arguing to any extent that he doesn't have a point in saying that they are inefficient or corrupt, but seriously, when the US spends billions upon billions in military equipment and wars, it can't spare 60 million dollars?

Bottom line is, it is unrealistic in this world we live in to be non interventionist. Sitting it out is not an option anymore. Specially for the US. When most of the products you consume are imported, when most of your debt is own by foreigners, when most of your companies make HUGE profits around the world, not in your own home, how could you possibly justify not caring and not getting involved in situations around the world. The solution is not to completely withdraw from involvement but to change the involvement into something more productive. Is this a challenge? Yes. Will it be hard? Yes. Is it worth pursuing? Hell yes.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX So ignore the rest of the world because it is easier to conduct business when you only have to consider one opinion? You mind moving the US to the moon then? That way you don't have to get into 'entangling alliances' with these other meddlesome countries that also happen to be located in this planet. I love it how he complains about the US sending 60million to UNESCO. He complains how the US is helping fund these agencies that help other people. Can you imagine the horror? Now I am not arguing to any extent that he doesn't have a point in saying that they are inefficient or corrupt, but seriously, when the US spends billions upon billions in military equipment and wars, it can't spare 60 million dollars? Bottom line is, it is unrealistic in this world we live in to be non interventionist. Sitting it out is not an option anymore. Specially for the US. When most of the products you consume are imported, when most of your debt is own by foreigners, when most of your companies make HUGE profits around the world, not in your own home, how could you possibly justify not carrying and not getting involved in situations around the world. The solution is not to completely withdraw from involvement but to change the involvement into something more productive. Is this a challenge? Yes. Will it be hard? Yes. Is it worth pursuing? Hell yes.

Perhaps if you had a better understanding of it you wouldn't be so quick to let your emotions cloud your judgement.

As George Washington said in his farewell address:

quote:

"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." http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa...democrac/49.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...interventionism

And I don't want to have to delve into the topic of UNESCO right now but it's my opinion that they're not nearly as benevolent as they make themselves out to be. I do know for a fact that my country has been ceding valuable land (such as our National Parks, etc.) to them for quite some time now under the framework of them becoming new UNESCO "World Heritage Sites."

I just don't understand you guys. Maybe its youthful ignorance, I don't know. The guy wants to abolish the IRS! Its all a lot of wishful thinking guys.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I just don't understand you guys. Maybe its youthful ignorance, I don't know. The guy wants to abolish the IRS! Its all a lot of wishful thinking guys.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would even try to justify keeping them around!

First off, much of what they do (taxing peoples wages) technically isn't even legal. Secondly, if our government was to go back to playing the role which our Founding Fathers had originally envisioned, we wouldn't even need them!!

People are too used to handouts and public assistance. Too many American's are in a continual state of dependence and the system as it stands right now only serves to foster that dependence.

One of the synonyms for dependent is subordinate. By it's definition alone, subordinate means "someone subject to the authority or control of another." I say f**k that! As a human being, I want to stay self-reliant and fully independent!! It's the American way!

And I know that I'm not the only one to think this because Emerson sure did know about it!

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I think he sounds more and more like a Pat Buchanan isolationist type. Now I personally think Ron Paul seems like a much warmer person than Pat Buchanan is, but some of his rhetoric is awfully similar. I don't think these organizations are perfect, it's obvious they aren't. But pulling out of them isn't going to somehow make the UN or WTO better. It wouldn't be good for our standing in the world, and it's already not very good...leaving these organizations would be a big slap in the face to the world that the United States will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants...and now do we really want to do that? And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?

You really underestimate the brilliance and intuitive insight and education of the "founders". They are much more qualified even in 1776 than your average blow-joe idiot in 2007, who actually has the audacity to soil his only protections against the government and tyranny with phrases like "I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution" and excuses like "that's not very realistic".

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Perhaps if you had a better understanding of it you wouldn't be so quick to let your emotions cloud your judgement. As George Washington said in his farewell address:

It was 17-fucking-96. Just because George Washington, who was a great president in his time, said that we should stay out of alliances in a world where it took two months to cross the Atlantic Ocean means we should follow it to the letter of the law? Should we also follow the Bible to the letter? You people act like his farewell speech is some sort of religious text that should never be deviated from.

The fact of the matter is, Washington could not envision a world where it takes 5 hours - much less 5 days - to cross the Atlantic. Where China pumps $444 Billion of investment into Africa each decade, and where war impacts the economic and political security of entire regions. He didn't understand the world we live in today.

And go ahead, use UNESCO as a reason we should pull out of the UN. But I would love to hear your rationale behind WHO, WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, or UNHCR. I really would.

And while we're on the topic of Ron Paul being short-sighted and unrealistic, US isolationism goes hand in hand with protectionism, which has been proven again and again by economists as bad for the overall well-being of the economy. Maybe you don't like NAFTA. Fine. But don't withdraw from the world and raise up tariffs to shut outselves off - because the first people that will suffer are the American consumers. Free trade would necessitate the kind of interconnection (as well as bilateral trade agreements) that Washington seemed so unfond of. So don't give me the excuse that we can still have free trade with Ron Paul. The truth is, we wouldn't.

___________________

Lebez, you are aware that Ron Paul is against ALL TARIFFS OF ANY KIND correct? He would reduce or eliminate every barrier and every law on the books that prevents voluntary trade with other people/nations. He believes that we don't need bureaucracies or formal agreements to regulate commerce.

Just leave people free and trade will happen naturally.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Lebez, you are aware that Ron Paul is against ALL TARIFFS OF ANY KIND correct? He would reduce or eliminate every barrier and every law on the books that prevents voluntary trade with other people/nations. He believes that we don't need bureaucracies or formal agreements to regulate commerce. Just leave people free and trade will happen naturally.

Economically something has to give. He can profess to be open to free trade, but history has shown that free trade doesn't happen without bilateral trade agreements reducing tariffs on both sides. Otherwise one country will profit at the others' expense. And with all this talk of "entangling" international agreements, I don't see Paul reaching out to the world and seeking trade negotiations.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby You really underestimate the brilliance and intuitive insight and education of the "founders". They are much more qualified even in 1776 than your average blow-joe idiot in 2007, who actually has the audacity to soil his only protections against the government and tyranny with phrases like "I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution" and excuses like "that's not very realistic".

So you are saying that the 'founders' in 1776 should have the final word on things happening in 2007? Come on, I am sure they were smart and insightful, but in this day an age, we have even smarter and more insightful people. Sure they wrote a good basic framework, but things that don't adapt tend to die off. There is no point in trying to keep things exactly as they are if they are not working any more. Constantly referring to people that lived 200 years ago and are so unconnected to our current world situation is a bit silly.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome