In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Question.....
Night Stalker
Member Posts: 11,967
I wonder how Ron Paul would handle this one?
I mean, after all, Canada is not in Russia... are they?
Would Ron Paul's foreign policy of "The Golden Rule" apply here?
NS
__________________________________________________________________
Russians Likely Looking for Weapons Info, expert says
Andrea Janus, CTVNews.ca
Date: Tuesday Jan. 17, 2012 6:46 PM ET
If the Russians are indeed the "foreign entity" a Canadian naval officer is
accused of leaking secrets to, they were likely looking for intelligence on
weapons systems used by NATO, says one espionage expert.
Word broke Monday that Sub.-Lt. Jeffrey Paul Delisle is facing two charges
under Canada's Security of Information Act. Sources have told CTV's Ottawa
Bureau Chief Robert Fife that the "foreign entity" in question is Russia and
that Delisle was caught in the act last week.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay would neither confirm nor deny Tuesday that
the Russians have been on the receiving end of information that Delisle is
alleged to have passed along since 2007.
But Arne Kislenko, a history professor at Toronto's Ryerson University and
an expert in national security, said the Russians would be "very interested"
in learning about the "functional intelligence" a man like Delisle would
have access to, through his work at CFB Stadacona's Trinity section. The
facility is a naval communications and intelligence operational centre in
Halifax.
Delisle would know about not only Canada's weapons' systems, but also those
of its partners, such as the United States.
"So in that light, not to say he's guilty because that's not my job,"
Kislenko told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview. "But if the Russians were
looking, or anybody else was looking, for somebody who had tactical
operational knowledge about Canadian Armed Forces' weapons systems and our
relationship with NATO partners, he'd be a pretty damned good guy to go
after."
Documents obtained by The Canadian Press indicate the alleged crimes
occurred in or near Halifax, Ottawa and Kingston.
None of the allegations against Delisle have been proven in court.
For Canadians who are surprised by talk of Russian spies, given that the
Cold War is long over and the western world's attention has turned to
terrorists, Kislenko said the reasons for spying on Canada are three-fold.
"Canadians suffer from a chronic naivete to assume we're not important
enough to spy on. If I was a spy, Canada would be one of the first places
I'd go," he said. "Who's better plugged in to both the US and the UK? Who's
a member of multilateral institutions and agencies (like) NORAD, NATO, G20,
the UN, the list goes on? We're plugged in."
As well, all world powers want to know the military and technological
capacities of both their friends and their enemies.
"Even though we're not at war with Russia and relations have improved
considerably since the end of the Cold War, from Moscow's perspective the
West is still by and large adversarial. We often forget that here," Kislenko
said.
Finally, with the Russians allying themselves with international pariahs
Iran and North Korea, they want to know what organizations such as NATO may
have planned to deal with security threats from those countries.
"The Russians aren't just looking for any old information. They also need to
be highly competitive in terms of commercial or industrial intelligence, as
well as military technology," Kislenko said.
"Knowing what your enemy has, or even what your friend has, in their arsenal
is extremely important."
Canada's reputation safe
It remains unclear exactly what information Delisle stands accused of
handing over. However, the operations centre in Halifax at which he was
based handles communications with Canadian vessels, as well as ships
belonging to allies including the United States.
The centre is also home to part of an undersea surveillance system once
operated by the United States Navy to monitor Soviet submarines before it
was folded into the Canadian operations.
According to Kislenko, the facility is the centre of a great deal of
information-sharing, "The co-ordinates of how Canadians do soldiering and
the weapons systems that we use, is something that other NATO partners have
about us and that we have about them," he said.
But it's highly unlikely that this case will make Canada an international
security pariah, given that allies such as the U.S. and the United Kingdom
are subject to spy scrutiny as well. "The reality of the intelligence
communities and the military communities is that they know this goes on
routinely and they know -- really importantly to this story -- that their
own communities are equally at risk," Kislenko said.
"I don't think all of a sudden Canada will become persona non grata in the
intelligence community."
Read more:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120117/espionage-delisle-charges-120117/#ixzz1jlmCFgBb
.
I mean, after all, Canada is not in Russia... are they?
Would Ron Paul's foreign policy of "The Golden Rule" apply here?
NS
__________________________________________________________________
Russians Likely Looking for Weapons Info, expert says
Andrea Janus, CTVNews.ca
Date: Tuesday Jan. 17, 2012 6:46 PM ET
If the Russians are indeed the "foreign entity" a Canadian naval officer is
accused of leaking secrets to, they were likely looking for intelligence on
weapons systems used by NATO, says one espionage expert.
Word broke Monday that Sub.-Lt. Jeffrey Paul Delisle is facing two charges
under Canada's Security of Information Act. Sources have told CTV's Ottawa
Bureau Chief Robert Fife that the "foreign entity" in question is Russia and
that Delisle was caught in the act last week.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay would neither confirm nor deny Tuesday that
the Russians have been on the receiving end of information that Delisle is
alleged to have passed along since 2007.
But Arne Kislenko, a history professor at Toronto's Ryerson University and
an expert in national security, said the Russians would be "very interested"
in learning about the "functional intelligence" a man like Delisle would
have access to, through his work at CFB Stadacona's Trinity section. The
facility is a naval communications and intelligence operational centre in
Halifax.
Delisle would know about not only Canada's weapons' systems, but also those
of its partners, such as the United States.
"So in that light, not to say he's guilty because that's not my job,"
Kislenko told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview. "But if the Russians were
looking, or anybody else was looking, for somebody who had tactical
operational knowledge about Canadian Armed Forces' weapons systems and our
relationship with NATO partners, he'd be a pretty damned good guy to go
after."
Documents obtained by The Canadian Press indicate the alleged crimes
occurred in or near Halifax, Ottawa and Kingston.
None of the allegations against Delisle have been proven in court.
For Canadians who are surprised by talk of Russian spies, given that the
Cold War is long over and the western world's attention has turned to
terrorists, Kislenko said the reasons for spying on Canada are three-fold.
"Canadians suffer from a chronic naivete to assume we're not important
enough to spy on. If I was a spy, Canada would be one of the first places
I'd go," he said. "Who's better plugged in to both the US and the UK? Who's
a member of multilateral institutions and agencies (like) NORAD, NATO, G20,
the UN, the list goes on? We're plugged in."
As well, all world powers want to know the military and technological
capacities of both their friends and their enemies.
"Even though we're not at war with Russia and relations have improved
considerably since the end of the Cold War, from Moscow's perspective the
West is still by and large adversarial. We often forget that here," Kislenko
said.
Finally, with the Russians allying themselves with international pariahs
Iran and North Korea, they want to know what organizations such as NATO may
have planned to deal with security threats from those countries.
"The Russians aren't just looking for any old information. They also need to
be highly competitive in terms of commercial or industrial intelligence, as
well as military technology," Kislenko said.
"Knowing what your enemy has, or even what your friend has, in their arsenal
is extremely important."
Canada's reputation safe
It remains unclear exactly what information Delisle stands accused of
handing over. However, the operations centre in Halifax at which he was
based handles communications with Canadian vessels, as well as ships
belonging to allies including the United States.
The centre is also home to part of an undersea surveillance system once
operated by the United States Navy to monitor Soviet submarines before it
was folded into the Canadian operations.
According to Kislenko, the facility is the centre of a great deal of
information-sharing, "The co-ordinates of how Canadians do soldiering and
the weapons systems that we use, is something that other NATO partners have
about us and that we have about them," he said.
But it's highly unlikely that this case will make Canada an international
security pariah, given that allies such as the U.S. and the United Kingdom
are subject to spy scrutiny as well. "The reality of the intelligence
communities and the military communities is that they know this goes on
routinely and they know -- really importantly to this story -- that their
own communities are equally at risk," Kislenko said.
"I don't think all of a sudden Canada will become persona non grata in the
intelligence community."
Read more:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120117/espionage-delisle-charges-120117/#ixzz1jlmCFgBb
.
Comments
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
A simple statement would take care of everything. "If you attempt to harm the U.S. in any way we will destroy you and your entire country."
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
Well said.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
Well said.
quote:As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
See how fast they react and change there mind when money stops flowing.
I wonder how Ron Paul would handle this one?
I'm not sure what exactly there is for Paul (or any other President, for that matter) to "handle"
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
I wonder how Ron Paul would handle this one?
I'm not sure what exactly there is for Paul (or any other President, for that matter) to "handle"
If, given the current situation in Canada, which is to say a Foreign Intelligence Service (ie.. Russia) is actively engaging you offensively, what would he say?
Seems to me his philosophy is if we do not keep an eye on Russia, Iran, NKorea, etc... they will not bother us.
Given this weeks development in Canada, what says you? Does his policy work, or is it a pipe dream?
NS
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
OK.. the video is from December of 2007, so we have to "assume" none of his primary thoughts or positions have changed [;)].
Europe (GBR, France, etc..) tried this after WWI with Germany. During that interwar period, Germany built a tremendous capability in both military and political front. France and England tried largely to forget about the savage nature of WWI and it cost them dearly.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks if we (the US) were to pull back form our "foreign entanglements" and our current (modern) foreign engagement strategy, our enemies would recognize this and, while throwing their hands up, would lament "well, damn, I really have a HUGE ideological difference with you Americans, but since you are no longer in Iraq, I'll let it go... cheers brotha".
Well guess what? That didn't work for Nick Burg
The world is a dangerous place. Fortunately, we have folks who are willing to do unsettling things to evil people on behalf of the American public. I cannot imagine what that good nights sleep is worth in dollars, but I know what it feels like in lost hours of sleep.
So, vote for Ron Paul and doom our country to 4 more years of the ame old shiit. I for one recognize that the current offerings of the opposing party are not optimal, but they are certainly preferable to the alternative.
Again, just my .02... and you mileage may vary.
NS I
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
ok, I'll tackle this question:
first I must start with the disclaimer that I do not know the details of what Ron Paul meant by his "golden rule" statement, as I cannot get into his head.
But otherwise, I do not believe that a policy of continued vigilance against potential threats is contrary to a policy of non-interventionism. In the years leading up to WWII, the US had a foreign policy bordering on isolationism, but we still had war plans to potentially fight Japan...and plans to potentially fight Canada!!!
That being said, it appears to me that the pentagon has already shifted capabilities to fighting counter-insurgency operations and away from the Cold War era policy of preparing for a serious war with the likes of Russia or China. Granted, I don't know if this is just propaganda aimed at civilians but every so often we keep hearing about the "new military" or "new role of the military in a post 9-11 world". So our government, for better or worse, has already decided that Russia is not as big a potential threat without Ron Paul.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
SkiCat,
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I have to do my homework before I respond about our collective foreign policy response, because I can not speak intelligently about it all (inclusive).
As a Political Science PhD candidate at a major university, I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by this group and I humbly believe this election cycle will break all the rules.
IMHO, America stands at the proverbial edge and this election, more than any other I can remember, will be a defining moment in either our recovery or our loss as a nation.
Cheers,
NS
NS... Bear in mind that my opinion is that of a plumber who prefers to think for himself and my main tool/skill for deciphering this tangled mess is that I am getting better at spotting when I am being lied to. My biggest regret is that I didn't start paying attention soon enough.
And that my friend is EXACTLY why your opinion is so damn valuable!!!
NS
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
For the 100th time Ron Paul is not an isolationist.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
"I don't think he'll listen lad" William the Red
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
For the 100th time Ron Paul is not an isolationist.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
if a Canadian is selling secrets to Russia, the neo-con thing to do is obvious...BOMB GERMANY [:o)]
I don't think that this is anything new or special, to be honest...
you can bet that NATO also has people trying to get intel on the military developments of Russia, China, and even India. Spies that get caught are punished and/or exchanged, security measures are reviewed and damage control done, and life and diplomacy go on.
More to the point, given Ron Paul's foreign policy, how could this happen? He specifically espouses a policy of "isolation is the answer," but what happens when other nations around the world will not follow, or play by those rules?
As much as I can get on-board with Ron Paul's proposed changes to OUR government, I cannot get on-board with his foreign policy because I simple know the rest of the world does not play by those rules.
NS
"I don't think he'll listen lad" William the Red
Why would a man listen to fools, eh?
Et tu, Brute?
NS
Again way to go.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
OK.. the video is from December of 2007, so we have to "assume" none of his primary thoughts or positions have changed [;)].
Europe (GBR, France, etc..) tried this after WWI with Germany. During that interwar period, Germany built a tremendous capability in both military and political front. France and England tried largely to forget about the savage nature of WWI and it cost them dearly.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks if we (the US) were to pull back form our "foreign entanglements" and our current (modern) foreign engagement strategy, our enemies would recognize this and, while throwing their hands up, would lament "well, damn, I really have a HUGE ideological difference with you Americans, but since you are no longer in Iraq, I'll let it go... cheers brotha".
Well guess what? That didn't work for Nick Burg
The world is a dangerous place. Fortunately, we have folks who are willing to do unsettling things to evil people on behalf of the American public. I cannot imagine what that good nights sleep is worth in dollars, but I know what it feels like in lost hours of sleep.
So, vote for Ron Paul and doom our country to 4 more years of the ame old shiit. I for one recognize that the current offerings of the opposing party are not optimal, but they are certainly preferable to the alternative.
Again, just my .02... and you mileage may vary.
NS I
I know this is not supposed to be the result but it's the result I see in real life and on the streets.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
SkiCat,
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I have to do my homework before I respond about our collective foreign policy response, because I can not speak intelligently about it all (inclusive).
As a Political Science PhD candidate at a major university, I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by this group and I humbly believe this election cycle will break all the rules.
IMHO, America stands at the proverbial edge and this election, more than any other I can remember, will be a defining moment in either our recovery or our loss as a nation.
Cheers,
NS
IMHO if you want to be clueless about politics go to a university and get a degree. The Same applies to music. If you want to fail in say Rock and Roll go get a degree in Music and learn to read music too.
I know this is not supposed to be the result but it's the result I see in real life and on the streets.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
SkiCat,
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I have to do my homework before I respond about our collective foreign policy response, because I can not speak intelligently about it all (inclusive).
As a Political Science PhD candidate at a major university, I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by this group and I humbly believe this election cycle will break all the rules.
IMHO, America stands at the proverbial edge and this election, more than any other I can remember, will be a defining moment in either our recovery or our loss as a nation.
Cheers,
NS
So, is it true that "Rock &Roll never forgets?" or have you run out of other viable options/responses? [;)]
NS
Wait a minute, had America stayed out of WWI the allies and the Central powers would have found a better lasting more fair peace at around 1916-1917. It was the USA's entry into the war that brought the world the Treaty of Versailles and that treaty as noted by a French General was only a 20 year armistice. Way to go interventionalism. And by the way this un intended consequence will also give the world WWIII.
Again way to go.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
OK.. the video is from December of 2007, so we have to "assume" none of his primary thoughts or positions have changed [;)].
Europe (GBR, France, etc..) tried this after WWI with Germany. During that interwar period, Germany built a tremendous capability in both military and political front. France and England tried largely to forget about the savage nature of WWI and it cost them dearly.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks if we (the US) were to pull back form our "foreign entanglements" and our current (modern) foreign engagement strategy, our enemies would recognize this and, while throwing their hands up, would lament "well, damn, I really have a HUGE ideological difference with you Americans, but since you are no longer in Iraq, I'll let it go... cheers brotha".
Well guess what? That didn't work for Nick Burg
The world is a dangerous place. Fortunately, we have folks who are willing to do unsettling things to evil people on behalf of the American public. I cannot imagine what that good nights sleep is worth in dollars, but I know what it feels like in lost hours of sleep.
So, vote for Ron Paul and doom our country to 4 more years of the ame old shiit. I for one recognize that the current offerings of the opposing party are not optimal, but they are certainly preferable to the alternative.
Again, just my .02... and you mileage may vary.
NS I
We weren't directly involved until 1917, but don't let reality get in your way.
NS
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
IMHO if you want to be clueless about politics go to a university and get a degree. The Same applies to music. If you want to fail in say Rock and Roll go get a degree in Music and learn to read music too.
I know this is not supposed to be the result but it's the result I see in real life and on the streets.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
SkiCat,
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I have to do my homework before I respond about our collective foreign policy response, because I can not speak intelligently about it all (inclusive).
As a Political Science PhD candidate at a major university, I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by this group and I humbly believe this election cycle will break all the rules.
IMHO, America stands at the proverbial edge and this election, more than any other I can remember, will be a defining moment in either our recovery or our loss as a nation.
Cheers,
NS
So, is it true that "Rock &Roll never forgets?" or have you run out of other viable options/responses? [;)]
NS
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Wait a minute, had America stayed out of WWI the allies and the Central powers would have found a better lasting more fair peace at around 1916-1917. It was the USA's entry into the war that brought the world the Treaty of Versailles and that treaty as noted by a French General was only a 20 year armistice. Way to go interventionalism. And by the way this un intended consequence will also give the world WWIII.
Again way to go.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
OK.. the video is from December of 2007, so we have to "assume" none of his primary thoughts or positions have changed [;)].
Europe (GBR, France, etc..) tried this after WWI with Germany. During that interwar period, Germany built a tremendous capability in both military and political front. France and England tried largely to forget about the savage nature of WWI and it cost them dearly.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks if we (the US) were to pull back form our "foreign entanglements" and our current (modern) foreign engagement strategy, our enemies would recognize this and, while throwing their hands up, would lament "well, damn, I really have a HUGE ideological difference with you Americans, but since you are no longer in Iraq, I'll let it go... cheers brotha".
Well guess what? That didn't work for Nick Burg
The world is a dangerous place. Fortunately, we have folks who are willing to do unsettling things to evil people on behalf of the American public. I cannot imagine what that good nights sleep is worth in dollars, but I know what it feels like in lost hours of sleep.
So, vote for Ron Paul and doom our country to 4 more years of the ame old shiit. I for one recognize that the current offerings of the opposing party are not optimal, but they are certainly preferable to the alternative.
Again, just my .02... and you mileage may vary.
NS I
We weren't directly involved until 1917, but don't let reality get in your way.
Reality is England courted our involvment from 1915 on. It did not matter if we were not invloved directly till 1917, the allies kept holding out on the hope we would come into the war and we did.
If you want reality with WWI ask me anytime I am always glad to help.
I never run out of viable explanations. So far as Rock and Roll, I don't know if it forgets or not and it does not matter because Rock and Roll is a trip not a destination
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
IMHO if you want to be clueless about politics go to a university and get a degree. The Same applies to music. If you want to fail in say Rock and Roll go get a degree in Music and learn to read music too.
I know this is not supposed to be the result but it's the result I see in real life and on the streets.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
SkiCat,
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I have to do my homework before I respond about our collective foreign policy response, because I can not speak intelligently about it all (inclusive).
As a Political Science PhD candidate at a major university, I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by this group and I humbly believe this election cycle will break all the rules.
IMHO, America stands at the proverbial edge and this election, more than any other I can remember, will be a defining moment in either our recovery or our loss as a nation.
Cheers,
NS
So, is it true that "Rock &Roll never forgets?" or have you run out of other viable options/responses? [;)]
NS
Relax brotha..... you don't wanna blow a gasket. [;)]
NS
]If, given the current situation in Canada, which is to say a Foreign Intelligence Service (ie.. Russia) is actively engaging you offensively, what would he say?
Seems to me his philosophy is if we do not keep an eye on Russia, Iran, NKorea, etc... they will not bother us.
Given this weeks development in Canada, what says you? Does his policy work, or is it a pipe dream?
NS
Russia has been actively spying on the West for a long time........just as we spy on them. There's nothing "offensive" about their activities, its just how the game is played. Nothing I've seen from Ron Paul says he wants to eliminate our foreign intelligence programs.
If you have information that says otherwise, I'd love to read it.
Btw.....I just wanted to thank to my new son for giving me the opportunity to discuss geo-politics at 4 in the morning, rather than do something non-productive.........like sleep [;)]
But, Ron Paul promised we would be left alone so long as we "minded our own business."
Could he possibly be wrong?
NS
But, Ron Paul promised we would be left alone so long as we "minded our own business."
Could he possibly be wrong?
NS
That's a quote open to a lot of interpretation.
There's a big difference in intelligence gathering and engaging in active hostilities.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
But, Ron Paul promised we would be left alone so long as we "minded our own business."
Could he possibly be wrong?
NS
That's a quote open to a lot of interpretation.
There's a big difference in intelligence gathering and engaging in active hostilities.
Really?
NS [;)]
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
Thanks for posting this, it saved me a lot of typing.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
Night Stalker....I get a different take on Paul's foreign policy than you it seems. From the speeches I have heard and the positions he has taken in the past, I am comfortable that he is the most in tune with the realities of our past foreign policy and has clearly identified many of its shortcomings.
Never have I heard Paul say we have to stop paying attention to and render ourselves unaware of what transpires globally. He promotes non-intervention which, after seeing the lack of success we have experienced employing a policy of invasive intervention, really has a lot of appeal.
Applying the Golden Rule does not mean we are forced to naively hope that everyone "plays nice" and weakly accept affronts to our well being without defense. It simply means that we do not originate atrocities, launch preemptive invasions, violate the airspace of other sovereign nations, or in any other way attempt to circumvent the rule of law which we have already agreed to live under.
The plain fact of the matter is that we are spread too thin and cannot afford to continue propping up the military industrial complex any longer. By continuing our past policies we only insure the loss of allies and building a solid case for the rest of the planet that the US is out of control.
It is also irrational to expect to exert any significant control over territories on the opposite side of the planet when our own borders are sieves.
To the matter of the original question posed as to how Paul would handle Canada, There are ways to put pressure on Canada to correct the problem within the Rule of Law so as to motivate them to police themselves better and until such time as it takes to regain our trust we eliminate their access to classified material. How else could you handle it?
Thanks for posting this, it saved me a lot of typing.
and?
Your original thought is?
NS
Poli-"ticks"!
Does this make you nervous? [;)]
What a sad state..................
NS
quote:Originally posted by FEENIX
Poli-"ticks"!
Does this make you nervous? [;)]
What a sad state..................
NS
Yes, of Ron Paul's kumbaya foreign policy! [:p]
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Wait a minute, had America stayed out of WWI the allies and the Central powers would have found a better lasting more fair peace at around 1916-1917. It was the USA's entry into the war that brought the world the Treaty of Versailles and that treaty as noted by a French General was only a 20 year armistice. Way to go interventionalism. And by the way this un intended consequence will also give the world WWIII.
Again way to go.
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
OK.. the video is from December of 2007, so we have to "assume" none of his primary thoughts or positions have changed [;)].
Europe (GBR, France, etc..) tried this after WWI with Germany. During that interwar period, Germany built a tremendous capability in both military and political front. France and England tried largely to forget about the savage nature of WWI and it cost them dearly.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks if we (the US) were to pull back form our "foreign entanglements" and our current (modern) foreign engagement strategy, our enemies would recognize this and, while throwing their hands up, would lament "well, damn, I really have a HUGE ideological difference with you Americans, but since you are no longer in Iraq, I'll let it go... cheers brotha".
Well guess what? That didn't work for Nick Burg
The world is a dangerous place. Fortunately, we have folks who are willing to do unsettling things to evil people on behalf of the American public. I cannot imagine what that good nights sleep is worth in dollars, but I know what it feels like in lost hours of sleep.
So, vote for Ron Paul and doom our country to 4 more years of the ame old shiit. I for one recognize that the current offerings of the opposing party are not optimal, but they are certainly preferable to the alternative.
Again, just my .02... and you mileage may vary.
NS I
We weren't directly involved until 1917, but don't let reality get in your way.
Reality is England courted our involvment from 1915 on. It did not matter if we were not invloved directly till 1917, the allies kept holding out on the hope we would come into the war and we did.
If you want reality with WWI ask me anytime I am always glad to help.
Right. 60 million troops not counting the US, with 38 million of them on the Allied side, and our entry into the war in April of 1917 is what kept them from a peace treaty in 1916.
You can just as easily argue that if we had not tipped the post Russian withdrawal balance, the stalemate might have gone on longer.
He struggles, flails and attempts to use simple analogies that coincide with current and historical events and to use simple, broad and general concepts to illustrate the overall issue (e.g. the golden rule), since detail explanation is just not possible.
At the risk of an offensive analogy, it is like attempting to explain the planting, cultivation and harvesting of bananas for the establishment of a long-term food source, to a chimp, in 60 seconds, when the chimp is focused on grabbing and eating the banana it sees laying there.
I expect that if I were not already attuned to the concepts, the ethic, the philosophy and the issues that Dr. Paul is attempting to lay out, that I would not think much of him.
Fact is, I am intently attuned to those things and therefore his positions are crystal-clear to me just as the ethic and governing philosophy he advocates are dead-nuts on with the design of this republic and with the ethic and principles that I firmly hold to.
And so it goes...
First, there are those who reject military-interventionism, predatory government, the military-industrial complex, neoconservatism and other repressive things, who naturally gravitate to Dr. Paul as he is the lone voice of liberty in a wilderness of tyrannical government.
Next, there are also those who totally oppose the liberty and limited government philosophy and who will do near anything to denigrate or destroy any chance of Dr. Paul's message gaining traction or wide-spread consideration.
Finally, there are also those who hold, to whatever degree, with the economic and liberty message espoused by Dr. Paul, but who support the military-interventionism of America, because they have bought off on the neocon-mantra, or they truly believe that we must suppress 'radicals and terrorism' all around the globe to be secure and that Dr. Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is dangerous to America.
As always, I see this as another manifestation of the age old battle between individualism vs. collectivism, with our current governance being collectivist in nature and being directly destructive to liberty and to the Constitution, via carefully managed and orchestrated public-opinion efforts and crisis, some created, some merely capitalized upon.
Huge and clear lines exist that many will never cross, in ethic, belief and philosophy, nor in the acceptance.
It will eventually devolve into a shooting war or revolt here in 'new america', I believe.
Our "Protecting American Interest" simply means we extract the funds from tax payers to insure the corporations doing business wherever they want.
The American military mission is not to protect the USA. It is to protect American interest a very big difference
This is about protecting the American Empire and while Paul is naive the simple math comes out to a US economic collapse in which we still lose that empire. His way gives up the empire to save the country.
If you believe we can continue the American Empire with a few cut backs here and there you are dreaming.
We are bankrupt and in denial over it refusing to admit reality and still believing America has the right to control the world through corporate profits.
These same corporations our military protects with our tax dollars believe in their right to profit, not in America. they have no problem gutting the USA of the ability to produce but expect us to protect them to insure their bonuses.
And, it is unpatriotic to suggest we do anything but interfere with other nations who get in the way of our doing business.
We dress it up for the dumb down masses but we are not protecting America, we are protecting American business
We should at least be honest about what "interest" really means
The delusions of grandeur are sad. The reality is the empire is dead but some keep yelling "CLEAR" and keep the heart going just a bit longer because everything is just fine.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Neither Romney or Obama will do anything but continue the path to economic oblivion.
The fact a wacko like Paul is a better choice tells you how horrific the situation really is.
Please, tell me Obama or Romney is better for the future, go ahead.
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
Non-interventionism or isolationism... The definitions are very different.
OK.. the video is from December of 2007, so we have to "assume" none of his primary thoughts or positions have changed [;)].
Europe (GBR, France, etc..) tried this after WWI with Germany. During that interwar period, Germany built a tremendous capability in both military and political front. France and England tried largely to forget about the savage nature of WWI and it cost them dearly.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks if we (the US) were to pull back form our "foreign entanglements" and our current (modern) foreign engagement strategy, our enemies would recognize this and, while throwing their hands up, would lament "well, damn, I really have a HUGE ideological difference with you Americans, but since you are no longer in Iraq, I'll let it go... cheers brotha".
Well guess what? That didn't work for Nick Burg
The world is a dangerous place. Fortunately, we have folks who are willing to do unsettling things to evil people on behalf of the American public. I cannot imagine what that good nights sleep is worth in dollars, but I know what it feels like in lost hours of sleep.
So, vote for Ron Paul and doom our country to 4 more years of the ame old shiit. I for one recognize that the current offerings of the opposing party are not optimal, but they are certainly preferable to the alternative.
Again, just my .02... and you mileage may vary.
NS I
Pull back, stop the flow of wasted money and keep a very close eye on our enemies. If attacked...defend viciously.
All the other candidates will continue the same "stick our noses in everyone else's business" policy that gets usd more dead and more enemies.
My (and probably your) neighbors would likely do well to keep their noses out of our homes. We, as a country, should understand this.