'I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis' - Ron Paul

Ron Paul believes in a non interventionist policy. Not an isolationist policy.

I wish you guys that keep throwing the word isolationist around would take the time to research what Ron Paul actually believes in instead of what the mass dream media tells you he believes in.

Wouldn't hurt to keep a dictionary around neither. That way you can look up and compare the words intervention and isolation.

How hard is that? Two words, two meanings. Isolationism does not equal non interventionism. As some would have us believe.

Lookie here,

I'll even help get ya started on your way to enlightenment if looking for yourself is to much trouble, just CLICK HERE.

 

That has been explained, and ignored, time and time again.

And even though niether Dr. Paul, or Aaron need any defense from me, hearing the fromer called an isolationist, is as dishonest as the latter being called a troll.

 

I know I've explained "blowback" many times in the past and people just aren't getting it. Lately I've even tried to explain it using third grade reasoning (replacing people with dogs) but I'm afraid even that is over the heads of most folks here abouts.

 

I gave his manifesto to a die-hard democrat, he read it, and ordered a case of them to pass around. It takes three or four hours to read. Much less time than a lot of folks have spent here, saying things about the man that just are not true.

 

Both Non-interventionism and Isolationism essentially mean avoiding alliances with other nations.

It's like trying to make a distinction between Liberalism and Progressivism. Doesn't fly.

 

Maybe this will help. Probably not but it's worth a try.

Intervention is defined in the dictionary as the "interposition or interference of one state in the affairs of another." That is, specifically, the act or fact of altering the affairs of one state by the willful action or coercion of another state. There are many examples of such intervention in world history, should one wish to educate themselves as to more exactly what it means. Our combat engagements (since there is no declared war) in Iraq are a form of intervention. Our economic sanctions against Cuba are another. Of course, in the interest of fairness, there have been plenty of positive instances of intervention as well, such as the liberation of Vichy France.

Isolation, on the other hand, is defined as "a policy or doctrine of nonparticipation in international economic and political activities." That is, specifically, the decision of one country to focus the entirety of its citizenry and industry within its own borders. Thus, no trade, no talking, no participation with the rest of the world in any form. Those of you who have taken even the most rudimentary of economics courses know how wonderful trade is in creating wealth. Those of you who study history will know how woeful a decision it is to isolate one's country from participation in its community. And that, really, is the most important distinction: participation.

What exactly does that distinction mean? It means we should be diplomats and moderators, instead of judge and jury. It means we should trade fairly for what we want, instead of moving into a country with our military to regulate the resources we covet. Some would argue this is dangerous, with how many enemies we have abroad. Abe Lincoln said "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." That is exactly the attitude we should base our foreign policy upon. We have injured many, justly and unjustly, but the time is not too late for us to adopt a policy with which we could convince the world that we are friends. Don't worry about OPEC cutting off our oil supply; trust me, they may not like us, but boy do they LOVE our money, and they don't want to stop getting it any time soon. Of course, looking past that "soon" mark, one could easily see a time in which China and India are capable of buying all the oil produced by those countries, and if we have done nothing to repair our friendship by then, imagine how much worse things could get.

That, of course, brings me to my next point.

CONTINUE . . .

NS says,

That's just not true. Read the above and have another go at it. It's simple. Two different words, two different meanings.

To often people try to confuse and subvert the plain meaning of words to advance their own agenda and it's dishonest.

 

Brother, you are wrong on this. Isolationism also requires isolation in terms of trade, peace treaties, and such.

Non-intervention just refers to avoiding military action in situations that do not directly involve the United States. In fact, it does not even go that far. It would allow for declared wars in instances where the U.S. had a serious interest, but would eliminate endless police actions.

 

Well every country has to trade if they want to succeed economically. And the reality is that those trade routes have to be defended, which the US and it's allies did for over 60 years.

Look at all the Europen countries which have cut their defence budget down to practically nothing. Are they any better off now? Nope their economies are rattling apart anyway. That's why the economic arguments for cutting our military never really make much sense. Our biggest costs are entitlements anyway.

 

No, our biggest cost is bailing out the world's banks that were leveraged 3,000 to 1.

 

Wasn't MY idea.

 

Maybe not but if I remember correctly you did all you could to deflect the blame away from the guilty parties.

If I didn't know you so well I might mistake this as your specialty if only because you've done it so many times in the past on behalf of so many guilty parties.

Don't feel bad about it tho ole budro that just puts you in with the majority here. :smilewinkgrin:

 

You have nothing I'm going to buy. Ron Paul is no isolationist. You have been shown this. You may continue if you wish, but you should at least explain what makes him an isolationist, so people could at least counterpoint with you.

 

Which, being interpreted, meaneth: "I can't answer your arguments and you're making me look like an utter fool."

It's the whole basis of your argument, genius. Why should we have fought the Nazi's? And the only reason you attempt to draw a line between the Jewish holocaust and abortion is because you don't believe the unborn fall under the banner of "your fellow man."