[skywalker5291]

My view of foreign policy is taken directly from the Constitution. If you disagree with it then amend the Constitution. But all the Constitution says is that Congress should fund the Navy and Army but for no longer than two years (without reviewing the situation again). The President is the commander in chief but only Congress has the power to declare war.

None of these things is being followed with out little Middle East World Tour. If you dont like what the Constitution says then either amend it or leave my country but that is the law and it should be followed.

[Purple Haize]

Haize - you could have saved yourself a lot of typin' & explainin' by just posting this:

Ha. I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it

[jmdickens]

I understand the history and how problematic this area is but most of the issues you listed are things that were in some way or another started by us being over there.

I agree with you, but why do we sell weapons to these countries? We arm them, now we have to stop them. reminds me of when Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."

"Pick up the gun."

Boom, boom.

"You all saw him. He had a gun."

[Purple Haize]

My view of foreign policy is taken directly from the Constitution.

None of these things is being followed with out little Middle East World Tour. If you dont like what the Constitution says then either amend it or leave my country but that is the law and it should be followed.

This statement anD this one

but most of the issues you listed are things that were in some way or another started by us being over there.

Is where things go off the rails. For starters I'm POSITIVE that these situations were not started by US involvement. Secondly, even if that point were to be ceeded, so what? This, IMO, is the biggest cop out of Ron Paul foreign policy. It doesn't deal with present reality, but with only what we WOULDN'T have done in the past. Case in point, he says we wouldn't have gotten involved in WW 2 if we hadn't botched the Versaiiles Treaty. I believe he also insinuated we shouldn't have been involved in the first place, but am not sure. Regardless, you are running for office NOW not then. Yes the Versaiiles treaty sucked, but if you were president in 1936 you'd have to deal with it. Same holds today. You may not agree with our actions with the Shah and the Sadaam Hussein, but you have to deal with it. Telling us what you wouldn't have done is pointless.
Thirdly, Congress could have chosen to defund the Military and it's expenses in the wars since 9/11. They never did. They did it before in Central America and Vietnam, so they certainly had precedent. Therefore, it is Constitutional. Yes , Jefferson was not a fan of a standing Army but other Founding Fathers were. They were not fond of housing that Army on private property. They were also all pretty much on board to have citizens well armed in case that Army started feeling its oats so to speak. Which, IMO, is a good check and balance.
The world has changed a mite bit since the 1700's. America is the most powerful nation on Earth, or at least in the discussion. What has NOT changed is our dealing with foreign governments. We did it before we were a nation and have been doing it since.

[Purple Haize]

I understand the history and how problematic this area is but most of the issues you listed are things that were in some way or another started by us being over there.

I agree with you, but why do we sell weapons to these countries? We arm them, now we have to stop them. reminds me of when Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheep herder's feet: "Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."

"Pick up the gun."

Boom, boom.

"You all saw him. He had a gun."

Horrible analogy. These countries WANT the 'gun' as you put it. The fella in the movie didn't.

[jmdickens]

Thirdly, Congress could have chosen to defund the Military and it's expenses in the wars since 9/11. They never did. They did it before in Central America and Vietnam, so they certainly had precedent. Therefore, it is Constitutional.

Come on Haize. Military spending can be put on emergency funding and is off the books. Congress can pay for it's BS pet projects by doing this. It is a simple loop hole that Congress and Presidents like to use.

2008 is a good example:(h.r.02642) Bush went to Congress and asked for 100 Billion to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We assumed the democrats would have cut the spending because they were so against the war. Well at least that was the political push then. Anyways, instead of cutting the funding to send a message to the executive branch, Congress gave the 100 billion and added another 62 billion dollars for war funding and continued unemployment funding. It is utterly amazing how reckless the bureaucrats were and continue to be.

[jmdickens]

Horrible analogy. These countries WANT the 'gun' as you put it. The fella in the movie didn't.

Bologna Haize. If we are still claiming that these countries are dangerous, why the hell are we giving them arms? That is the point. We aren't making the world safe.

[Purple Haize]

Horrible analogy. These countries WANT the 'gun' as you put it. The fella in the movie didn't.

Bologna Haize. If we are still claiming that these countries are dangerous, why the hell are we giving them arms? That is the point. We aren't making the world safe.

No. In your analogy the fellow doesn't want the gun, it is being forced on him. Here we are selling arms to a willing participant. I'm not sure how many weapons we are currently sending to Iran and Syria though.

[jmdickens]

Horrible analogy. These countries WANT the 'gun' as you put it. The fella in the movie didn't.

Bologna Haize. If we are still claiming that these countries are dangerous, why the hell are we giving them arms? That is the point. We aren't making the world safe.

No. In your analogy the fellow doesn't want the gun, it is being forced on him. Here we are selling arms to a willing participant. I'm not sure how many weapons we are currently sending to Iran and Syria though.

you're arguing semantics. The point is, we are arming people and then claiming we need to stop them because they're armed and dangerous.

[Purple Haize]

Who? Egypt? That's part of the 1979 Camp David accords. I'm sure reneging on our agreements would go well. I don't think we are selling Syria anything and know beyond a shadow of a doubt we arent selling anything to Iran. So what's your point? It is not a semantic argument because in your analogy the choice given to the gunfighter is not the same as freely buying and selling

[jmdickens]

Who? Egypt? That's part of the 1979 Camp David accords. I'm sure reneging on our agreements would go well. I don't think we are selling Syria anything and know beyond a shadow of a doubt we arent selling anything to Iran. So what's your point? It is not a semantic argument because in your analogy the choice given to the gunfighter is not the same as freely buying and selling

The 1979 Camp David Accords have been a huge devastation for anyone other than Israel and the US. Carter and the other backers only wanted this because they were concerned after The Yom Kippur War and felt the Soviet Union was going to invade the West's energy supply. A territory dominant Israel was not the goal.

You have not even tried to persuade anyone how arming someone is different than selling someone a weapon. You are avoiding the entire issue.

If we are going to talk about agreements, let's discuss the Boland Amendment. Iran-Contra violated this, but I don't hear you going the high road about the US avoiding an agreement. In fact, legislation.

I am finished with this. Bomb all the brown countries we can America!!!!

[Purple Haize]

You have not even tried to persuade anyone how arming someone is different than selling someone a weapon. You are avoiding the entire issue.

It isn't. But in your Jack Palance parable this was not the case. He was FORCING someone to arm themselves which is different from selling or giving arms to willing parties. The Camp David Accord brought a 30+ year peace in an area that saw war in every decade before it. Egypt became stable, and even after the death of Sadat there was no Nasser to replace him. Because Egypt was not going to attack Israel non of the other surrounding countries were going to either. Yep. That was a crappy agreement alright

[skywalker5291]

The main problem here is people in the US treat Israel like a child. Lets stop making them so dependent on us and let them fight their own battles (which they keep wanting to do). Israel could handle 95% of the problems in the Middle East if we let them but instead we decide to get involved in EVERYTHING.

While I agree with you Haize that the analogy is weak it still shows the problem of these people that are armed and out to kill us are in power bc of us. We have been overthrowing govts in the Middle East since 1960's (sometimes overthrowing people that were elected by that country). When do we stop getting involved in everything? Where do we draw the line? Why do we need to be in Lyiba etc?

9/11 happened bc we had no security at home. They walked in the front door and did it. It wasnt a secret we had intelligence that we ignored so they walked through OUR front door and laughed while they did it. The Founding Fathers were smart men and knew that a strong defense was need not a strong offense but we seem to only listen to them if it fits our political agenda.

[Purple Haize]

We do sell Israel a heck of a lot of weapons and systems. They will do what they want and always have. They bombed Iraq over our objections, ditto the Syrian nuclear plant.
We certainly did have a hand with some of the regimes we are now having issues with. But at that time there was another geopolitical power player on the scene. Perhaps we all remember the good ole USSR.
And I thought 9/11 was an inside job

[JK37]

The religious idealism of Middle Eastern nations in opposition to Israel keeps those nations from realizing this simple truth: the US has armed Israel to the teeth, making it the biggest dog on the block. The US now rightly feels an obligation to keep that big dog it created from eating all the other dogs whole. Literally, if America cut Israel loose, the result would be disastrous.

So, why does America remain so involved? Oil, of course.

Someone on either side of this debate answer me this: how effective would the US military be at protecting just America's domestic interests without oil? Asked another way: if the US took a noninterventionist theory, surrendering our access to oil within two decades (conservative estimate), for how long could the US military continue to operate effectively?

Can anyone on either side answer these questions for me?

In my current position, this is why I view a noninterventionist theory as naive.

[Purple Haize]

The religious idealism of Middle Eastern nations in opposition to Israel keeps those nations from realizing this simple truth: the US has armed Israel to the teeth, making it the biggest dog on the block. The US now rightly feels an obligation to keep that big dog it created from eating all the other dogs whole. Literally, if America cut Israel loose, the result would be disastrous.
.

I disagree with this statement 100%. If Israel' enemies were to lay down there arms they would have nothing to fear from 'Zionist Expansion'. Sure there are some crazy nuts who want to see the Mosque of Omar et al destroyed and Israeli borders returned to the days of King Omri and the Northern and Southern Kingdoms but they are few and fringe. If Israel were to lay down its weapons, they would be annihilated within a year.
The one main thing the IDF learned from its excursion into Lebanon( I almost typed LeBron there ) in the 80's is that they absolutely suck at a sustaind offensive land campaign. Their military is not designed for it and can never practically be designed for it. The are exceptional and without equal in defensive warfare and counter attack and tactical offensive operations. Israel does not have to be turned lose, they will do their own thing. We do try to get in there way and I'm not always a fan of that. The recent leaking of the agreement of Airbases in Azerbijan was indefensible reckless and dangerous with the smell of Joe Biden all over it. But it does show they were ready and willing to act on their own, with or without US approval.