Thread: Ron Paul's manifesto, chapter 2

Okay so I understand that Ron Paul does not want to involve our country in any wars unless attacked by another country. In chapter two he seems to clearly state it, and I have to admit it is a beautiful chapter, where he quotes maxims of many brilliant men. I was just wondering how far he would go with his non-interventionalism in certain situations. For example, lets say China had invaded Taiwan, and many other countries in southwestern Asia. Would Ron Paul feel it necessary to go to war in this situation. I would be cause it demonstrates China's hostility to other countries and desire for world domination. I would not vote for a president that was this apathetic in foreign affairs. It would be plain out stupid. Confrontation would be a necessity. Would it not? Opinions? Answers to my question on Ron Paul?

One reason Pauls more extreme views often dont bother me is for one
thing the President is one man, a president isn't a dictator (Bush jokes
aside)--also Paul supports these ideas, he speaks for them, it doesn't
equate to absolute unbending behavior.

Another thing to be considered is how allies are defined when talking
about an attack on "us".

Originally Posted by bla bla

One reason Pauls more extreme views often dont bother me is for one
thing the President is one man, a president isn't a dictator (Bush jokes
aside)--also Paul supports these ideas, he speaks for them, it doesn't
equate to absolute unbending behavior.

Another thing to be considered is how allies are defined when talking
about an attack on "us".

Yes, I agree with your statement. Although, in a situation where China is aggresively trying to build an empire, and is strategically taking over landmass, killing millions and millions of people, destroying infastructure, and threatening everyone who tries to stand in their way, what would Ron Paul do? I think this is an important question. Is this not a situation where he would create blockades, send subamarines and battleships, and threaten the Chinese government with attacks? Or in the most severe case, would Ron Paul threaten China with nuclear attacks if China intimidated the United States with their own nuclear capabilities? I think these are valid question to ask him.

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

Yes, I agree with your statement. Although, in a situation where China is aggresively trying to build an empire, and is strategically taking over landmass, killing millions and millions of people, destroying infastructure, and threatening everyone who tries to stand in their way, what would Ron Paul do? I think this is an important question. Is this not a situation where he would create blockades, send subamarines and battleships, and threaten the Chinese government with attacks? Or in the most severe case, would Ron Paul threaten China with nuclear attacks if China intimidated the United States with their own nuclear capabilities? I think these are valid question to ask him.

Paul's reluctance toward interventionism is no more or less an issue as
Obama's. McCain and Hillary are classic neocons. If any of the four were
the sitting President they would have advisers, and representatives of
various factions, making the case for or against in any crisis. I fail to
see how people can arbitrarily assign a complete detachment from reason
to Paul for his opinions, but not Obama.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Paul's reluctance toward interventionism is no more or less an issue as
Obama's. McCain and Hillary are classic neocons. If any of the four were
the sitting President they would have advisers, and representatives of
various factions, making the case for or against in any crisis. I fail to
see how people can arbitrarily assign a complete detachment from reason
to Paul for his opinions, but not Obama.

My issue is that Paul seems to be so aggresively noninterventional (Sounds like an oxymoron) that he may not see it fit to go to war under the circumstances I described. I think any rational person would go to war under in that situation. I know Hillary and McCain would go to war if these circumstances existed. The chapter in his book talked about how he believes we should look for motives about why others attack and hate us and I agree with that. Unfortunately, he never talks about situations where war is acceptable other than if the United States is attacked. He probably would go to war with China in that situation, but what I guess I wanted was merely a source that presented situations where he would take hostile actions against another country.

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

My issue is that Paul seems to be so aggresively noninterventional (Sounds like an oxymoron) that he may not see it fit to go to war under the circumstances I described.

Since Paul's chance is almost null you should probably be worrying about
Obama.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Since Paul's chance is almost null you should probably be worrying about
Obama.

I am certain that Obama will not win the presidency so it doesn't bother me at all.

Originally Posted by Moderates of America

Okay so I understand that Ron Paul does not want to involve our country in any wars unless attacked by another country. In chapter two he seems to clearly state it, and I have to admit it is a beautiful chapter, where he quotes maxims of many brilliant men. I was just wondering how far he would go with his non-interventionalism in certain situations. For example, lets say China had invaded Taiwan, and many other countries in southwestern Asia. Would Ron Paul feel it necessary to go to war in this situation. I would be cause it demonstrates China's hostility to other countries and desire for world domination. I would not vote for a president that was this apathetic in foreign affairs. It would be plain out stupid. Confrontation would be a necessity. Would it not? Opinions? Answers to my question on Ron Paul?

We have a commitment to Taiwan and North Korea. I doubt that Paul would turn our backs on those commitments. South Korea is armed to the hilt and I find it funny that a country like N. Korea would invade. In fact I believe that if we pulled out troops from the DMZ the N. Koreans would shrink the size of their military. I just do not see them invading again. They may have a large military as far as man power is concerned and they act all gung ho and all but I doubt they would follow orders. They are very under equipped.

I personally think that a US withdrawal from the DMZ would make for better relations between the two Korea's and quit possibly make for a better situation for the people of N. Korea. Therefore I support a complete withdraw from that area.

Originally Posted by michaelr

We have a commitment to Taiwan and North Korea. I doubt that Paul would turn our backs on those commitments. South Korea is armed to the hilt and I find it funny that a country like N. Korea would invade. In fact I believe that if we pulled out troops from the DMZ the N. Koreans would shrink the size of their military. I just do not see them invading again. They may have a large military as far as man power is concerned and they act all gung ho and all but I doubt they would follow orders. They are very under equipped.

I personally think that a US withdrawal from the DMZ would make for better relations between the two Korea's and quit possibly make for a better situation for the people of N. Korea. Therefore I support a complete withdraw from that area.

Considering that North Korea won't feed it's own people because all the countries resources go to the army which is armed to the teeth and severly outnumbers the South Korean army, you still feel safe about this? I'm not disagreeing, just playing devils advocate. Also, by maintaining a huge standing army and nuclear program they can continue to blackmail the west for aid. Hum... perhaps you're onto something here?

Originally Posted by democraticus

Considering that North Korea won't feed it's own people because all the countries resources go to the army which is armed to the teeth and severly outnumbers the South Korean army, you still feel safe about this? I'm not disagreeing, just playing devils advocate. Also, by maintaining a huge standing army and nuclear program they can continue to blackmail the west for aid. Hum... perhaps you're onto something here?

I knew exactly what I was saying and that I was going to get asked these very questions.

We are the enemy that N. Korea defends itself against. We also interfere with diplomatic relations between the two Korea's. I strongly believe that the two countries would get along much better if we were not there interfering. I believe that the south would like very much to trade with the north and I know they would love to sell them power.

Our being there will only keep N. Korea's military large, therefore the people will continue to suffer. As I said earlier, S. Korea is armed to the hilt and it would be very foolish for the north to invade. It would be the tipping point for the north and they would be certain to lose.