• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

There are two basic philosophical theories as to why we should not engage with the rest of the world. There's the Far Left position, which is that we are inherently evil and corrupt all of those other countries with our involvement, and then there's the Far Right position - known sometimes as the Pat Buchanan theory - which is that we should avoid any involvement with foreign countries because they are inherently evil and corrupt us.

I'm guess the Pauls, and most Libertarians, fall into the second category.

Not quite.....as Buchanan explains some here.

 
There are two basic philosophical theories as to why we should not engage with the rest of the world. There's the Far Left position, which is that we are inherently evil and corrupt all of those other countries with our involvement, and then there's the Far Right position - known sometimes as the Pat Buchanan theory - which is that we should avoid any involvement with foreign countries because they are inherently evil and corrupt us.

I'm guess the Pauls, and most Libertarians, fall into the second category.

Well there's also a view emerging that all involvement isn't bad but that we error on the side of involvement.

It seems like everytime something happens there's a list of 40 bad things that "could" occur if we don't intervene and barely any talk of what the actual cost would be.
 
Think he will be able to affect the GOP and the Neo-Cons.....he also has the Facebook site in going after the Neo's.

If he only understood what they were. The man's most popular speech on neoconservatism was derivative of a Truther and the Bilderberg Group Conspiracy Nutters.

Look, this is a solid move for Paul..that is, if his son is up for the job of keeping it going.
 
It's a good thing period. It seems like most foreign policy think tanks debate HOW WE SHOULD interevene. Will be nice to have a think tank that brings the question back to why should we interevene?

I think the Iraq invasion has proven that the question on if we should interevene generally isn't asked as much as it should be.

It would be a good companion piece to the Cato Institute.
 
If he only understood what they were. The man's most popular speech on neoconservatism was derivative of a Truther and the Bilderberg Group Conspiracy Nutters.

Look, this is a solid move for Paul..that is, if his son is up for the job of keeping it going.



Whatcha thinks.....Fiddy? ;)
 
Last edited:
A common problem is the idea, promoted by Kristol and others of the Neo-Reaganite group, that war weariness must be fought against rather than carefully considered and to a large extent, accepted. They are too married to the concept that we are the only ones holding ourselves back from accomplishing great and never-before-seen things in geopolitics.

The stuff about the "war machine" is a bit much to listen to from Paul, and makes it too....systematic for my taste.
 


17 minutes from Lew Rockwell show? No thanks. Reading snippets from their site usually makes me groan.
 
17 minutes from Lew Rockwell show? No thanks. Reading snippets from their site usually makes me groan.

Yeah, well I was just going with what Paul says. Myself I forwarded past anything else.
 
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.

Has the idiot ever even been out of the country?
 
[SUP][/SUP]
They have never given dumb old ron a second glance before,so why should they start listening to him now? The only thing this will do is to let him suck some more money out of his disciples. Good for him following in the footsteps of ham rove.

At least he gives speeches worth listening too in the US Senate, as for his disciples at least he has some, much better than being spoken too by a tool controlled by the bribe money of lobbyists on Capitol Hill. I imagine its the having a different opinion on the world part that angers little pony.

Corruption, American Style - Forbes.com

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, doesn't make a distinction between the two activities. When asked by e-mail, "What's the real difference between me bribing a customs agent so that I can bring a banned substance into the country or me contributing money to a senator and then cajoling him into making the substance legal for import?" Reich answered, "Frankly, I don't see much difference. A bribe is a bribe. People authorized only to act in the public interest may not use their office for private gain. Period."
 
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.

I take it the whole idea of not wanting war comes across to you as not having a foreign policy?

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."
 
Well they do say even a fool can be Right once in a lifetime.....naturally all Foreign policy takes Diplomacy. Which is like a give and take situation. Although the Progressive ideology of giving up all and being sell outs just will never be accepted by all of mankind. Which Paul and everybody else knows.....which is why he has now turned his attention to the Neo-Cons.
rolleyes.png

Neocons subscribe to the 'Clean Break' ideology on foreign policy for the Middle East, Ron Paul argues for a non-interventionist policy which respects international law.

They are opposed, this piece called The War Party gives an idea of what the Neocons are about, it also highlights the break between traditional conservatives
 
Neocons subscribe to the 'Clean Break' ideology on foreign policy for the Middle East, Ron Paul argues for a non-interventionist policy which respects international law.

They are opposed, this piece called The War Party gives an idea of what the Neocons are about, it also highlights the break between traditional conservatives


What do you mean by clean break JC? I thought they are about that Nation building BS now.
 
They have never given dumb old ron a second glance before,so why should they start listening to him now? The only thing this will do is to let him suck some more money out of his disciples. Good for him following in the footsteps of ham rove.

i dont understand you, surely you would be against the u.s. meddling in the affairs of other nations, involving ourselves in wars, which are not a threat to the u.s....i would think you at least support that position..which is pauls' position.
 
i'm pretty much with him on foreign policy. i would change it in this way : when another country sees the US coming, they will know we are bringing food, medicine, and technology.
 
What do you mean by clean break JC? I thought they are about that Nation building BS now.

Yes they're the same Fails. Phase 1 fail Clean Break, Phase 2 Nation Building, Phase 3 Blame everyone else/war weariness.

Phase 1 : A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phase 2 :
A U.S. neo-con fantasy gone very wrong - Opinion - Macleans.ca

Phase 3 :
Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future by Ron Paul

They're also dreaming up new political titles like 'neo-libertarian' and 'neo-isolationist' as peace could be dangerous.
 
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
Yep, his foreign policy is that other countries simply don't exist.
 
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."

Yes. Jefferson said that in 1801, which was a couple years before he declared America's first war. Being neutral was, and is, never a viable real life possibility in foreign policy; the 'Founders' never achieved it, and never practiced it, despite the citing of isolated quotes and speeches they made as politicians.
 
He believes in the Ron Paul brand name, and his own bank account. Media consultants and political campaign managers and corporations pay big bucks for propaganda. Cato is doing great. Hacks can get paid hundreds of thousands for merely writing an essay on why laid off citizens of the U.S. should be required to starve to death, as they can easily be replaced later by illegal aliens when the next 'up turn in the economy's business cycles' come around, for instance. Let 'The Market' take care of itself and stuff.

Was there an actual rebuttal in this rant? What does this have to do with isolationism vs non-interventionism?
 
So his foreign policy is free trade with all nations and diplomacy? Wow. Now that's some kind of deep thinking right there

Wow, a 'liberal' who thinks trade and diplomacy with other nations is 'hilarious.'
 
Wow, a 'liberal' who thinks trade and diplomacy with other nations is 'hilarious.'

Nice try, but no cigar. What's hilarious is that, when asked what Paul's position is on international relations, the only response is that he believes in trade and diplomacy. Brilliant. So does every reasonably intelligent 7th grader. You Libertarians need to come up with something other than personal greed and isolationism as your philosophy.
 
Back
Top Bottom