Ron Paul pwns Rudy Giuliani

[Madman81]

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War "domino theory."

Domino theory was not a foreign policy. Containment was. :peepwall

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War "domino theory."

Domino theory was not a foreign policy. Containment was. :peepwall

True, true. The two are often used interchangably. Straight from the wiki:

The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The Domino Theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world. Precursors to the theory include the Marshall Plan and the Korean War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

 

I do however feel that the US has taken a non-intervention and isolationist policy in the past more then a few times. Each of those times it has not ended up very well for us to a certain extent. Our policy prior to WW1 and against prior to WW2 were indirectly caused us in both cases not to be fully ready for war when it did come. Specially in WW2 it lead (not just us but britian and other countries) to the policy of appeasement which helped see to Germany's rising power in the time period.

Very good point. However, I would think you agree that geopolitics works with countries...terrorism is not geographic (and arguably not really political due to its ideological zeal) and as disengagement in the past has helped culling terrorism, disengagement is indeed a sound option to deal with it.

 

Same has occurred with the IRA. In Afghanistan. In Lebanon. What happens when the British try Ulsterisation? Or American build permanent military bases in Saudi Atabia? Sends ships to Yemen? Terrorism. It is pretty predictable.

 

Of course not everything is, but disengagement is respectable and it is sort of pitiful that a free media cannot inform people of the simple facts.

[yankeefan21]

The US can not become an isolationist country in the current world climate and economy.

Who said anything about isolationism? This is a global economy and isolationism isn't a viable option for ANY country in this day and age.

 

Also, less military spending doesn't have to mean less preparedness. Do you realize that we have troop deployments in over 130 countries and dozens of operations? If we weren't spread so thin, we could have a much better military with fewer troops. Fewer troops obviously saves you on salary, retirement, and benefits, but it also saves on equipment, leasing, contracts, training, and scores of other ancillary costs. So, theoretically, you could reduce the overall defense budget while increasing the $ spent per soldier. You could actually pay an enlisted soldier below the rank of E-4 enough that they would no longer qualify for food stamps. Imagine that? They could buy combat armor and night vision for combat units. Wouldn't that be nice? They could eliminate ridiculous spending rules and wasteful contracts [we had to buy pens from a certain approved supplier, for example, that charged us $2 for each pen when we could have gotten the same thing at Staples for 89 cents!]. There is an incredible amount of waste in military spending and that could easily be cleaned up. I guarantee you that they would never survive a Spitzer audit!

 

I would be a proponent of shifting the funding away from a US military presence in most countries and towards intelligence and diplomatic agencies. I would also love to see the Department of Homeland Security get completely abolished and the Patriot Act repealed. Then again, I'm just a dreamer. :thumbup

[Madman81]

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War "domino theory."

Domino theory was not a foreign policy. Containment was. :peepwall

True, true. The two are often used interchangably. Straight from the wiki:

The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The Domino Theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world. Precursors to the theory include the Marshall Plan and the Korean War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

A theory is just that. A theory. The policy based on the theory was containment. Wikipedia is hardly a strong reference.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War "domino theory."

Domino theory was not a foreign policy. Containment was. :peepwall

True, true. The two are often used interchangably. Straight from the wiki:

The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The Domino Theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world. Precursors to the theory include the Marshall Plan and the Korean War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

A theory is just that. A theory. The policy based on the theory was containment. Wikipedia is hardly a strong reference.

 

Never said it was. I was trying not to be disagreeable. Feel free to edit the wiki.

[FutureGM]

Terrorism cannot be solved with military means. The best thing to do is increase the funding to agencies like the CIA and NSA, and have them go on the offensive overseas and hunt terrorists. One thing that led to the failure of the CIA to predict 9/11, and the Iraq debacle, was their lack of humint (human intelligence) sources on the ground in either the Middle East or Iraq more specifically. We have become far too dependent on signal intelligence in fighting terrorism, which can only get you so far. The two best foreign intelligence services in the world (MI6 and Mossad) got that way through their excellent human intelligence training and operations.

[yankeefan21]

Terrorism cannot be solved with military means. The best thing to do is increase the funding to agencies like the CIA and NSA, and have them go on the offensive overseas and hunt terrorists.

Absolutely. The one caveat I would like to add to that statement is that education and training need to be the main use of that funding allocation. The CIA, NSA, Shadow Ops personnel all need to relearn how to perform these missions overseas in the most effective way possible. They also need to make it their mission to represent the US in the most friendly and honest of lights. The importance of "winning hearts and minds" can not overemphasized.

[strandedx02]

The US can not become an isolationist country in the current world climate and economy.

Who said anything about isolationism? This is a global economy and isolationism isn't a viable option for ANY country in this day and age.

 

Also, less military spending doesn't have to mean less preparedness. Do you realize that we have troop deployments in over 130 countries and dozens of operations? If we weren't spread so thin, we could have a much better military with fewer troops. Fewer troops obviously saves you on salary, retirement, and benefits, but it also saves on equipment, leasing, contracts, training, and scores of other ancillary costs. So, theoretically, you could reduce the overall defense budget while increasing the $ spent per soldier. You could actually pay an enlisted soldier below the rank of E-4 enough that they would no longer qualify for food stamps. Imagine that? They could buy combat armor and night vision for combat units. Wouldn't that be nice? They could eliminate ridiculous spending rules and wasteful contracts [we had to buy pens from a certain approved supplier, for example, that charged us $2 for each pen when we could have gotten the same thing at Staples for 89 cents!]. There is an incredible amount of waste in military spending and that could easily be cleaned up. I guarantee you that they would never survive a Spitzer audit!

 

I would be a proponent of shifting the funding away from a US military presence in most countries and towards intelligence and diplomatic agencies. I would also love to see the Department of Homeland Security get completely abolished and the Patriot Act repealed. Then again, I'm just a dreamer. :thumbup

That's the point exactly. Military spending likely would be reduced, but we could do tons more to protect the country with what we spend than we're doing now. Why could we possibly need to have troops stationed in over 130 countries? It's not "sitting on our hands," it's refraining from costly foreign adventures while redirecting resources to more effectively target our enemies.

 

And with regard to the point in the debate, Ron Paul appeared on CNN yesterday (link)to talk about how he was basically quoting the 9/11 Commission Report and the assessment of bin Laden's motives from the CIA. (I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.") What's the point of the media if they refuse to call candidates--especially frontrunners--on blatant inaccuracies during a nationally televised debate?

[Flying_Mollusk]

(I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.")

 

That's foxnews for you.

[strandedx02]

(I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.")

 

That's foxnews for you.

It was actually CNN.

[Passion]

(I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.")

 

That's foxnews for you.

It was actually CNN.

:lol

[yankeefan21]

(I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.")

 

That's foxnews for you.

It was actually CNN.

:lol :lol

 

God bless America.

[Admin]

Count me in as one who thinks we should break all ties with Israel.

 

Their special forces are among the most elite in the world, second only to Australia's SAS and Polands GROM force, and equal to U.S. DEVGRU and C.A.G.

 

Their intelligence gathering, espionage, and black ops are probably the most well developed and capable on the planet. Mossad is an organization you dont mess with.

 

Their overall national defense, training, and capability of their regular soldiers is second only to the U.S. most likely.

 

They have repelled any and all threats that have come their way.

 

Israel has worn the big boy pants for close to 60 years now. They dont need us holding their hands any longer. Break all ties except diplomatic.

 

Sit back and watch U.S.-Middle East relations improve ten fold.

[Flying_Mollusk]

(I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.")

 

That's foxnews for you.

It was actually CNN.

 

Whoops. The debate was on Foxnews so I figured thats what you were talking about. Im an idiot.

 

But this definitely proves CNN is liberal. :whistle

[Hotcorner]

Terrorism cannot be solved with military means.

Well let's say it can't be solved through military means alone.

 

(I love, by the way, how at one point while he's talking the caption beneath him is "Blaming U.S. for 9/11.")

that is shameful by the way if that's true. Pathetic media.

[EricWiener]

Terrorism cannot be solved with military means.

Well let's say it can't be solved through military means alone.

 

Beat me to it.

 

Also, how can anyone say that the Domino Theory didn't hold up and that its resulting strategy of containment wasn't successful?

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

Also, how can anyone say that the Domino Theory didn't hold up and that its resulting strategy of containment wasn't successful?

It must have something to do with the fact that the Korean War was a draw, the Vietnam War was lost, Laos then fell to Communism, Cambodia fell to Communism, India was a flat-out socialist state. Between the Eastern Bloc, China, India, and Southeast Asia, over half the world was outside the capitalist system. Containment did not stop the spread of socialism (because let's admit, none of the Communist countries were actually Communist.)

 

What did?

 

Kissenger and Nixon began a foreign policy of detente (essentially disengagement) and began opening markets, such as China. By the late 80s, these countries radically "de-socialized" their economies without any wars, or containment. In fact, it was the policy of detente as opposed to fighting proxy wars to cull Communism did its geo-political might dissipate.

 

The better question is who out there can, without being disingenuous, argue that containment was a successful policy as opposed to detente? That the Vietnam War, in any sense, strengthened America's position in the world?

[Flying_Mollusk]

Also, how can anyone say that the Domino Theory didn't hold up and that its resulting strategy of containment wasn't successful?

It must have something to do with the fact that the Korean War was a draw, the Vietnam War was lost, Laos then fell to Communism, Cambodia fell to Communism, India was a flat-out socialist state. Between the Eastern Bloc, China, India, and Southeast Asia, over half the world was outside the capitalist system. Containment did not stop the spread of socialism (because let's admit, none of the Communist countries were actually Communist.)

 

What did?

 

Kissenger and Nixon began a foreign policy of detente (essentially disengagement) and began opening markets, such as China. By the late 80s, these countries radically "de-socialized" their economies without any wars, or containment. In fact, it was the policy of detente as opposed to fighting proxy wars to cull Communism did its geo-political might dissipate.

 

The better question is who out there can, without being disingenuous, argue that containment was a successful policy as opposed to detente? That the Vietnam War, in any sense, strengthened America's position in the world?

 

You just hit the ball out of the ballpark with this one.

[Guest markotsay7]

Also, how can anyone say that the Domino Theory didn't hold up and that its resulting strategy of containment wasn't successful?

It must have something to do with the fact that the Korean War was a draw, the Vietnam War was lost, Laos then fell to Communism, Cambodia fell to Communism, India was a flat-out socialist state. Between the Eastern Bloc, China, India, and Southeast Asia, over half the world was outside the capitalist system. Containment did not stop the spread of socialism (because let's admit, none of the Communist countries were actually Communist.)

 

What did?

 

Kissenger and Nixon began a foreign policy of detente (essentially disengagement) and began opening markets, such as China. By the late 80s, these countries radically "de-socialized" their economies without any wars, or containment. In fact, it was the policy of detente as opposed to fighting proxy wars to cull Communism did its geo-political might dissipate.

 

The better question is who out there can, without being disingenuous, argue that containment was a successful policy as opposed to detente? That the Vietnam War, in any sense, strengthened America's position in the world?

I'm not sure who you are, but please marry me.

 

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[EricWiener]

Also, how can anyone say that the Domino Theory didn't hold up and that its resulting strategy of containment wasn't successful?

It must have something to do with the fact that the Korean War was a draw, the Vietnam War was lost, Laos then fell to Communism, Cambodia fell to Communism, India was a flat-out socialist state. Between the Eastern Bloc, China, India, and Southeast Asia, over half the world was outside the capitalist system. Containment did not stop the spread of socialism (because let's admit, none of the Communist countries were actually Communist.)

 

What did?

 

Kissenger and Nixon began a foreign policy of detente (essentially disengagement) and began opening markets, such as China. By the late 80s, these countries radically "de-socialized" their economies without any wars, or containment. In fact, it was the policy of detente as opposed to fighting proxy wars to cull Communism did its geo-political might dissipate.

 

The better question is who out there can, without being disingenuous, argue that containment was a successful policy as opposed to detente? That the Vietnam War, in any sense, strengthened America's position in the world?

I'm not sure who you are, but please marry me.

 

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

 

The height of Soviet prestige was 1980, at that point it was the end of detente. From that point on we spent them into the ground, contained them, filled every neighboring nation with nukes, and told them to quit. Nixon's great blow against communism was to contain the Soviets by going to China. Leaving Cambodia to its fate was a tremendous error.

[RudyTHEGANGSTER]

The height of Soviet prestige was 1980, at that point it was the end of detente. From that point on we spent them into the ground, contained them, filled every neighboring nation with nukes, and told them to quit. Nixon's great blow against communism was to contain the Soviets by going to China. Leaving Cambodia to its fate was a tremendous error.

 

So as not to create a whole debate on a subject, I will write one more response to this and then give you the last word if you would like it.

 

In a way, I think you are misrepresenting the long term effects of the detente policy. Granted, it unraveled in the 80s, and America took on new aggressive military measures (arming Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua) to limit the Soviet Union's geo-political influence. So far all intents and purposes, detente as a practiced foreign policy was dead.

 

However, was it the 1980s foreign policy that ended the geopolitical influence of socialism or was it the long term effects of detente and the opening of markets?

 

Arming Iraq to fight our mortal enemy Iran in order to "stabilize" the region so as to prevent further Soviet influence did not cause the Soviet Union to fall. Granted, it might have stopped the USSR's influence from growing, but judging from their failures in Afghanistan, they were in no position economically or politically to press the matter.

 

Furthermore, let's look at both the immediate and long term effects of the U.S.'s 1980s foreign policy. We supported Iraq to oppose Iran, but then to afford to meddle in Nicaragua required supporting Iran alongside Iraq. While we were successful in preventing Soviet expansion in Afghanistan, and eventually the leftist government in Nicaragua folded, this by no means was the reason why the entire Eastern Bloc was crumbling, China was increasing international trade, and even India started turning away from socialism to a market-oriented version. What occurred was that the liberalizing of trade and the growing futility of the command economy in the Soviet Union, which was already starting to crumble since the 1970s. America's victories in Nicaragua and Afghanistan were hardly the reason the Polish solidarity movement occurred, or that the command economy was failing, or anything else.

 

Now, what were the long term effects of the 1980s foreign policy? Well, the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan is one, and being this is a thread about Ron Paul publicly pointing out how failed foreign policy contributed to the September 11th attacks, you can see where I am going here. It has led to two wars in Iraq as well, which again, puts us in a mess. By encouraging Iraqi aggression and warfare (which in turn bankrupted the nation,) their attack on Kuway was precipitated, followed by the First Persian Gulf War, then U.N. Sanctions, and a second war fought to uphold them. Our 1980s foreign policy was hardly successful, considering the mess it has put us in.

 

With good reason you may object by saying that the 1980s foreign policy, as opposed to detente, was a death blow to the Soviet economy. Though we can argue back and forth whether it would collapse whether or not such foreign policy was implemented, the fact of the matter is that this matter is not even applicable. Our enemies now, terrorists, are not going to be defeated by brute economic force. If the only successful aspect of 1980s foreign policy was its economic effects, it is no use to us now.

 

So, what we are left with is proof that the peaceful opening of markets indisputably decreases aggression and that past military withdrawls from Islamic nations (like Lebanon and Afghanistan in the 1980s) did reduce terrorism. Furthermore, we have proof that meddling in the Middle East in the past hardly reduced the problems of the present, let alone prevent future problems from arising. In fact, they guarenteed future "blowback." The biggest risk we are taking is not fighting the War in Iraq in fear that if we don't fight them there we'll find them here, but what unimaginable blowback we'll suffer while we are over there exponentially making new enemies while our borders are unprotected.

 

So, as I argued initially, the "bring democracy to the Middle East" theory, alongside the domino theory, will lie in the trash-heap of history's policy blunders. The question is how many more will die and how much more it will cost until Americans will put their pride aside, admit the policy is not working, and work on instead avoiding matters of the Middle East which cannot be dealt with rationally. Reagan, the man whose foreign policy you support, realized this. It is time for the rest of us to do so.

[EricWiener]

Hardly going to go back and forth, since it is obvious to me that the fact that we spent the Soviets into the ground (military buildup), while still enjoying an amazing standard of living (market pressure) is what brought them down, so it is a little of both.

 

I think that the error in Iraq is in letting the Iraqis make their own constitution. We should have written it for them and said, "you want us out of you hair? This is the only way that is going to happen." We did it to Japan, and it's worked.

[legacyofCangelosi]

I'm jumping into this late, but its relevant to note that the Cold War 'Communist' countries does not equal "socialism". Althoguh straying from Marxism, the Soveit Union's system of government and economics is what in practice is Communism. Saying the USSr wasn't communist is like saying the U.S. isnt capitalist because we have social programs in the country.

 

So any victory for socialism is not a victory for the Cold War Communists, the cold war communists from the Soviet mold believed in an almost god-like perception of the 'party'. The Chinese system was completely different where legitimization came solely from the worker, especially the agricultural worker (similar mold to pre-USSR (circa 1965) Cuba and Khmer Cambodia.) The collapse of the Soviet Union was the defeat of Communism, all thats left is cold war relics like Vietnam and Cuba. And the pseduo-communist states like China, which has the most laissez-faire economic system i nthe World right now.

 

My argument is not one of causation or effectiveness of the plan, its an argument against the misconceptio nthat Soviet Communism was not communism, but was in fact socialism. That's not accurate. It wasn't Marxism, but it definitely was Communism as much as our policies now are capitalistic. Not pure, but the reality.

 

Edit: I wanted to add that philosophy and theory is one thing and practice and reality is another. Most philosophies don't remain pure at the practical level anyway.

[Guest Night Phantom]

I'm jumping into this late, but its relevant to note that the Cold War 'Communist' countries does not equal "socialism". Althoguh straying from Marxism, the Soveit Union's system of government and economics is what in practice is Communism. Saying the USSr wasn't communist is like saying the U.S. isnt capitalist because we have social programs in the country.

 

So any victory for socialism is not a victory for the Cold War Communists, the cold war communists from the Soviet mold believed in an almost god-like perception of the 'party'. The Chinese system was completely different where legitimization came solely from the worker, especially the agricultural worker (similar mold to pre-USSR (circa 1965) Cuba and Khmer Cambodia.) The collapse of the Soviet Union was the defeat of Communism, all thats left is cold war relics like Vietnam and Cuba. And the pseduo-communist states like China, which has the most laissez-faire economic system i nthe World right now.

 

My argument is not one of causation or effectiveness of the plan, its an argument against the misconceptio nthat Soviet Communism was not communism, but was in fact socialism. That's not accurate. It wasn't Marxism, but it definitely was Communism as much as our policies now are capitalistic. Not pure, but the reality.

 

Edit: I wanted to add that philosophy and theory is one thing and practice and reality is another. Most philosophies don't remain pure at the practical level anyway.

Maybe, but there is a difference between the theory/practical divide on average and the difference between communism in practice and what Marx wrote. None of the communist states ever allowed capitalism to create the infinite surplus necessary for communism to exist. Ergo, no practical occurrence of communism.

 

Furthermore, the divide between the US and pure capitalism is different. We have always followed the path described by Smith and the shell of total capitalism, just had some intervention by the government here and there. We never failed to reach capitalism, we've just gone about tweaking it across the years. Different.

[legacyofCangelosi]

I'm jumping into this late, but its relevant to note that the Cold War 'Communist' countries does not equal "socialism". Althoguh straying from Marxism, the Soveit Union's system of government and economics is what in practice is Communism. Saying the USSr wasn't communist is like saying the U.S. isnt capitalist because we have social programs in the country.

 

So any victory for socialism is not a victory for the Cold War Communists, the cold war communists from the Soviet mold believed in an almost god-like perception of the 'party'. The Chinese system was completely different where legitimization came solely from the worker, especially the agricultural worker (similar mold to pre-USSR (circa 1965) Cuba and Khmer Cambodia.) The collapse of the Soviet Union was the defeat of Communism, all thats left is cold war relics like Vietnam and Cuba. And the pseduo-communist states like China, which has the most laissez-faire economic system i nthe World right now.

 

My argument is not one of causation or effectiveness of the plan, its an argument against the misconceptio nthat Soviet Communism was not communism, but was in fact socialism. That's not accurate. It wasn't Marxism, but it definitely was Communism as much as our policies now are capitalistic. Not pure, but the reality.

 

Edit: I wanted to add that philosophy and theory is one thing and practice and reality is another. Most philosophies don't remain pure at the practical level anyway.

Maybe, but there is a difference between the theory/practical divide on average and the difference between communism in practice and what Marx wrote. None of the communist states ever allowed capitalism to create the infinite surplus necessary for communism to exist. Ergo, no practical occurrence of communism.

 

Furthermore, the divide between the US and pure capitalism is different. We have always followed the path described by Smith and the shell of total capitalism, just had some intervention by the government here and there. We never failed to reach capitalism, we've just gone about tweaking it across the years. Different.

 

 

Different only because of what capitalism theorizes. True the technology never reached the level of self sustainability and abilit yto create an unlimited surplus, diminishing the need for labor, hence products having no more value. However, the same way people now believe that the invisible hand does not exist and cannot truly balance the system, many also believe that Communism exactly like the Marxist theory can also never truly exist. So as such, the differnces are minute enough to stick by my argument.