|
16 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM (#1998709) Subject: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Amos AN interesting essay in support of a national policy of thoughtful non-interventionism has recently appeared written by Representative Ron Paul. I include an excerpt of it. The balance can be found here. Rep. Paul is the author of the recently published "An American Policy of Freedom". The Original American Foreign Policy by Rep. Ron Paul "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." – George Washington I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive. But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home? Get Ron Paul's new book, hot off the press! I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism. Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Policy, of course, is best defined by understanding purposes. If the United States once had a national purpose, beyond its own economic expansion, it has been badly obscured by the many clouds of conflict confusion generated over the last few decades, from Somalia to Kabul and Seoul. I would be interested to hear what people think. IS there such a thing as "purpose" for a group as large and motley as the United States? If so, what policies would best serve that purpose in defining how the nation should deal with other nations and individuals? A |
|
16 Mar 07 - 03:06 PM (#1998878) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Rapparee Gee, I thought it was "Drift and Profit." |
|
16 Mar 07 - 05:19 PM (#1999009) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Amos There have been purposes at different times that vitalized the nation. Drift and profit is the "don't care" value on which the system settles when it is suppressed by war, graft, insanity in high places, and so on. A |
|
16 Mar 07 - 05:44 PM (#1999023) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Little Hawk You're quite right, Amos, as to what should be the guiding priniciples of American foreign policy, but what is actually happening is the direct opposite of that. In a truly sane world all nations would have agreed by now to disarm their weapons of mass destruction and stand down their armies. All nations would have agreed by now to peaceful coexistence. All nations would have agreed by now to enshrine basic civil freedoms and to pay their workers similar real wages for the same type of work regardless of which country they happened to live in. All nations would have allowed their people freedom to travel abroad wherever they wish to (which wouldn't be a problem if economic conditions and civil rights were equalized around the world). We are not living in an enlightened society, we are living in a horribly divided feudal society with gross inequality and an unholy reliance upon violence and graft. Our present societies only appear relatively "advanced" because they are technologically quite sophisticated, but as a planetary community we are still in what I would term "the Dark Ages" of human development. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 06:40 PM (#1999074) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Donuel Our defense and weapons industry are now beginning to suffer from the wanton invasion policy of the United States. This month Saudi Arabia canceled its weapons contract with the United States (planes and ammunition) and signed a contract with China. May I remind you that Eisenhower warned us. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 06:54 PM (#1999093) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Bobert Man, I get so tired of sayin' this but it needs to be said yet again... This planet is becoming tribalized... You look at piccures of Iraq and you see folks driving Mercedes and Oldsmobiles... You look at piccures of Palestian kids trowing rocks at Isreali tanks and they have Air Jordon sneekers on... Fact it, the population of the earth is now very much interconnected... The stock market in China takes a nose dive and the US market tanks the next day... So, this is our reality and we Earthlings no longer have the luxary of fighting wars... War is obsolete and stupid... Everyone seems to have some level of understanding of this except Bush and his loyal true believer followers who collectively are stuck in the last century... Bobert |
|
16 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM (#1999101) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Amos Bobert: To stretch your last post into the thread theme, would you offer that one of our national purposes should be to implement the obsolescence of war among the nations of earth? To architect a means of mutual respect and self-determination among tribes or states (whether or not they are thought of as nations)? Tough duty to pull, given the history of things, hmmm? 'Course, now, human rights as an international standard is a good item, assuming we can restore it in our own domain first. A |
|
16 Mar 07 - 07:10 PM (#1999109) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Bobert Amos, my old bud... I believe this is where we started about 4 or 6 years ago when I started my first post here in Mudville entitled "Department of Peace"... B~ |
|
16 Mar 07 - 07:16 PM (#1999112) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Donuel There is still money in the war game, but as I said before we are starting to lose the world market for our weapons. We would have to rely on our own expenditure of weaponry in our own personal hot wars. All guns and no butter makes the US a dull place. The only reason left for war will be the scarcity of life giving resources and limiting world population for such resources. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 08:24 PM (#1999171) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: Peace I like Pat Paulsen's idea. He suggested that the way to stop plane hijackings was to give everyone guns when they got on the plane. Extend that. Let's give every country nuclear weapons and ICBMs. |
|
16 Mar 07 - 08:29 PM (#1999174) Subject: RE: BS: On National Purpose and Policy (U.S.) From: bobad That might very well produce a solution to the greenhouse gas problem. |