Bio not provided
Is it not strange the way Mr. Delaney uses terms that are left quite undefined, forcing us to deduce their meaning solely from surrounding context? He does not respond by asking for a concise definition of non-interventionism. Instead, he calls non-interventionism 'isolationist', even after being corrected. You are spot on, Pam. An attitude of respect (even if not returned) and free trade (even if not reciprocated) is not isolationist in any conceivable sense. It maybe foolish economically, politically or militarily - which James Delaney has not argued - but it is not a course that isolates it adherents politically, socially or economically. So what is he even talking about??
Judging from past discussions with closed-minded individuals that cut and run when the questions get too difficult for them, 'isolationist' means that we do not force our will on others based on perceived threats that may or may not have any basis in reality. We act with violence, or the threat thereof, and sanctions upon even the implied possibility of a threat. And even then, the implied nature may not even be coming from the target of our force. It may come from disgruntled expatriates who give us false intelligence to further their own ends - which was done in the case of Iraq when much of the information that we based our intelligence of Saddam's WMD's was garnered from such shady sources. And yet, Mr. Delaney claims Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive? Absurd in the extreme! @PamMcDermott @JamesP.Delaney @Mike Maharrey
3 years ago on "I love George Washington. Except for his Foreign Policy."
What we have met is not an impasse, but a lack of engagement on your part.
So be it.
That you would see no distinctions between Shiite and Sunni Islam in regard to our present circumstances is quite telling to me. You admit that our foreign policy has been 'rife' with mistakes... and yet, Ron Paul's foreign policy is fundamentally in error? What foreign policy do you advocate? A "rigidly practical" foreign policy? A platoon of questions arise form such a statement. Is there no other guiding principle above what is rigidly practical? If there is, what principle would that be? Why is a policy of non-interventionism (NOT "Isolationist", as you so foolishly refer) impractical? Is Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden Unit impractical when he agrees that we are targets of Islamic Jihad because of our foreign policy and the effects those policies have on Muslims? Is that an impractical position because it is factually in error? But if the expert Scheuer is correct, then is not insanely practical to assume that if it is American interventionist policies that are motivating Islamic terrorist, then removing the irritant of American interventions will lower tensions and rob the Jihadist of their main recruiting platform?
Do human beings volunteer as suicide attackers for no reason other than the metaphysical propositions of Islam, and Allah's promise of paradise and 72 perpetual virgins, or is it much more likely that what motivates Muslim suicide attackers is a sense that they are under attack from the West, and the United States in particular? Is it not odd that throughout the 1980's the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran called for a Holy War against the United States and absolutely nothing significant happened? And isn't it equally odd that Khomeini did not justify this Jihad based on our behavior in foreign policy, but in our culture and way of life... and yet, nothing happened? And isn't it all the more curious that the suicide attacks only began in full after the United States took up positions in Islamic territory, attacked a Muslim country and proceeded to stay on scene indefinitely?
The foreign policy that is impractical is yours. It ignores both historical realities and basic human nature. And I would add that any foreign policy that seeks to be practical would at least try to understand the enemy and what motivates them. Your "Sunni/Shiite" comment is very telling indeed.
Certainly, if a democratically elected government is endangering American life and Liberty, then appropriately is how they should be dealt with. But that hardly answers my question. I said nothing about any threat, attack or hostility. In fact, Iran posed no threat whatsoever when our foreign policy choice was to engage in subterfuge and enslave a nation under the rule of our favored dictator. And this was done in the name of security!It was done under the pretense that it was a new world, a world of a dangerous rival who had the bomb... and supposed designs on Middle-Eastern oil. Does this justify such sin?
No time, a three year old needs my attention. Plenty more to come...
I hardly see we we are in agreement. By no means was I even trying to imply that our foreign policy ( 'forward leaning'?) is the sole cause of our economic condition. On the other hand, you do lay the blame for this financial meltdown in one singular place, while seemingly disregarding the expensive cost of our foreign policy course of the previous decades. I do not. There is plenty of blame to go around. Furthermore, I believe that our foreign policy is a sign of the erosion of our moral fiber.
Who wishes to base our foreign policy on wishful thinking? Weren't you the one who complained earlier about another posters comment concerning your position being hyperbolic and inaccurate? This applies to you as well. It is pure nonsense.
Iranian Jihadists? The form of Islam we have been attacked by was Sunni, not Shia Islam. Yet we rattle the saber over Iran and its nuclear program. They will not go quietly away, in no small measure because of the very policies you apparently advocate. And why should they?
I have known dozens of Iranians in my life, and none where even the least bit hostile towards the United States, other than for the way the United States has behaved towards Iran for 50 plus years.
A question: Does a 'forward leaning' foreign policy actively participate in the overthrow of democratically elected foreign heads of state and install dictatorial monarchs who are fond of secret police and torture? Is that okay in your book? This is a serious question that truly seeks an answer from you. Thank you for your time.
Our position today is also quite precarious. Furthermore, our foreign policy has only exacerbated the bleak economic circumstances we face. We can ill afford to be drawn into internal squabbles in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and any number of other places. The founders feared the unforeseen consequences of foreign meddling. Human nature is no different today than in their time. And human nature has more to do with a sound foreign policy than what time it is in historical terms. Past wisdom is still valid wisdom, or it was never wisdom to begin with.
For example, having studied Islam and Islamic culture for the last several years, it seems to me that when left to itself, Islamic society is far more interested in their own internal squabbles than with spreading Islam, subjecting infidels or offensive Jihad of any kind. The current mindset of the Islamic Jihadist we face is one that is defensive in nature. This is a defensive Jihad. It is a war to expel foreign invaders and their puppet regimes. Ron Paul's foreign policy (and Washington's wisdom) would serve us well.
"Today, the exigencies of potential catastrophic nuclear and terrorist threats...requires a more forward-leaning, albeit catious, balanced and sensible approach."
Absolutely... that's why Ron Paul's foreign policy (and that of the founders) makes perfect sense, even now.
This article has spurred me to write. Reading this was so encouraging for me personally. I began to surrender my neo-con shallowness in 2007, and could see the sense of Ron Paul's overall philosophy in time to campaign for him in '08. Most of my family and friends were not at all receptive. I took some abuse from them at times, but by the election, I had converted several of them. Still others continued to spout the same neo-con catch phrases. I have spent the last several years educating as many people as I could. It is often thought that a political mindset is almost as unchangeable as ones religious presuppositions - that they flow from the same base presuppositions as our most basic worldview. But when I reflect on my own experience and read of your change of mind, I realize that change is possible.