Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (465201)	1/15/2012 11:34:57 AM
From: alanrs	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

>>>> Where I differ from Paul is that I have no illusions about the nature of the various rat holes around the world. He seems unable to accept that some regimes and cultures are truly evil,<<<< If one takes an "organic" view of the individual man,tribes, nations, mankind as a whole, all of mother nature, it isn't a hard step to Ron Paul's foreign policy. If one starts from the point of view that everything is the way it is for a reason, that it serves some purpose, that the powers at play are beyond our ability to quantify and beyond our ability to control except at the edges, that the consequences can't predictably be known for any of the possible actions which guarantees unintended consequences regardless, then a purely defensive stance makes sense. Maybe interfering in the Congo is a mistake, just prolonging the inevitable. Maybe it's worse than a mistake, twisting the Congo into something even worse than it would have been otherwise. Hard to know but not hard to keep in mind for consideration. I personally think he is a nut on foreign policy, I think even if we were to pull back to a purely defensive military stance, his idea of what that would be and mine would differ. HOWEVER, if we continue to enter wars we have no intention of winning, as we have done since Korea from what I can tell, suddenly Ron Paul's FP is more appealing. Who wants to be the first, last or middle guy killed because some politician got bored with Monopoly and decided a war might be a nice diversion. Going to war without the intent to win is immoral (I'm a little uncomfortable using that word, but did anyway), and worse than an isolationist policy, more plausibly. It's just live and let live at a national level. I view a lot of his opinions as 'organic', economics and biology being virtually the same subject, and I agree with most of them. He is by far the most Libertarian politician out there and it's probably a real tribute to the man himself that he has had success on the national stage. I've tried to figure how his view of economics and social structure would lead to his foreign policy view and the above is what I come up with. Just an assuming and surmising ramble on my part, nothing I've thought about too much. ARS