Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy: Peace & Respect – Not Intimidation, Bribes & War





Ron Paul: The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

  • Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
  • Offering friendship with all who seek it.
  • Participating in trade with all who are willing.
  • Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

»crosslinked«

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

985 Comments:

  1. Ron Paul is a Harbi

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. if it wasn't becuase this guy has a FEW crazy idias, i would sooo vote for him.

    well maybe i have to do some compromise, i guess

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. if it wasn't becuase this guy has a FEW crazy idias, i would sooo vote for him.

    well maybe i have to do some compromise, i guess

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Ron Paul is the president America deserves, not the one that America wants.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Ron Paul is the president America deserves, not the one that America wants.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. US FUNDS THE TALIBAN????

    One of the most important issues today is the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan and the fact that US
    Military Aid to Pakistan is being used to fund the Pakistani ISI which is in turn funding Taliban
    and Al Quada fighters. While this has been reported sporadically in the media for whatever
    reason political pundits on the left and right have effectively ignored this issue.

    Joe Klein in an article for Time, August 9, 2010, p. 19, has written an article that every American
    citizen should go to their library and read, he writes,

    "The commanders are unanimous in their belief that the ISI is running the show....And so,
    despite professions of alliance with the US by Pakistan's then dictator Pervez Musharraf, a
    decision was made to keep the Taliban alive. A spigot of untargeted military aid from the George
    W. Bush Administration helped fund the effort. A commander of the vicious Haqqani Taliban
    network tells Waldman that their funding comes from 'the Americans--from them to the
    Pakistani military, and then to us.' Waldman reports that the commander receives from the
    Pakistanis 'a reward for killing foreign soldiers, usually $4000 to $5000 for each soldier killed'".

    American tax dollars if not directly, then indirectly are being used to fund the Taliban and put
    a bounty on American boys and girls head... Makes one wonder why the establishment right
    or left is not reporting on this? If the right is covering for
    the mistakes of the Bush administration...why is the establishment left not reporting on this???
    ...this is the most important issue of the day...we will never win a war where if not directly then
    indirectly the US is funding the opposition!!!!

    woody voinche

    MidEast ChessBoard... www.amazon.com ...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. No Win War???

    The New American for November 9, 2009, has an interesting article on General Barry McCaffrey's statement that the US "faces 10 more years of war in Afghanistan" and that the US should "focus upon a long and expensive nation-building process for Afghanistan's tribal culture." There seems to be a mindset in the establishment for the US to maintain a long term presence in the MidEast.

    For a long time, the US has operated in the region through hidden agendas. In his book, The New World Order, Mr. Pat Robertson, states that George Bush 1 suggested that the fate of Kuwait was not the main issue, "launching the New World Order was the main thing." Mr. Robertson further writes, "By words and by silence, the United States flashed Saddam Hussein a green light" ... to move into Kuwait and suggests this was used as a pretext for the 1st Gulf War...the implication is that Saddam was entraped with Green Light Diplomacy but there was a much larger agenda(hidden) for moving against Hussein...........

    For the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the evidence suggests that the US and its allies are not doing all that can be done to win this war and there is some agenda for prolonging this conflict.

    The Advocate quotes Hillary Clinton(Dec. 7, 2009, p. 5A), stating it is "hard to believe" that no one in Islamabad knows where the al-Qaida leaders are hiding and couldn't get them "if they really wanted to."

    In the aftermath of 9.11, the bombing of the wrong escape route out of Afghanistan into Pakistan and the nighttime airlift by the US of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives that were allowed to escape(The New Yorker, Jan 28, 2002, p. 36); Gary Berntsen, the head of the CIAs team at Tora Bora said they tracked bin Laden and (he) "...could have been caught."(Newsweek, Aug 15, 2005, p. 5); There is evidence that the Pakistani ISI is funding the Taliban and knows where they live but dont arrest them.(Time, Nov. 29, 2004, p. 44)

    There is a strategy by the Pakistani government "...which pays tribes and insurgent networks to attack each other with a goal of preventing any one group from getting too strong".(US News, Oct 13/Oct 20, 2008, p. 24)(a strategy used by the Brits) Pakistani Ambassador, Haqqani presents evidence in his book that the Pakistani military and ISI make "...the pretense of arresting militants in order to get funds from Washinton. But it never shut down the networks."(Newsweek, May 11/May 18, 2009, p. 29)

    The CIA never takes a junior partner role with any of these groups and we have to assume wants this to continue. The New York Times(Oct. 27, 2009) reports that Karzai's brother is on the CIAs payroll and is a suspected player in the opium trade which finances the Taliban.

    All of this only contributes to a more chaotic situation which feeds a hidden agenda for a "no win war" and prolonged conflict at the expense of American boys and girls lives!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Well said Mr. Paul.
    I really like how he worded the part that our "Aggressor" policy will bring more enemies and more warfare. I wished more politicians had this similar idea. I think my country has enough enemies that we needlessly made... :/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Well said Mr. Paul.
    I really like how he worded the part that our "Aggressor" policy will bring more enemies and more warfare. I wished more politicians had this similar idea. I think my country has enough enemies that we needlessly made... :/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Actually the USA got a lot of enemies over the years... but only AFTER these "enemies" were attacked by the American army.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Oh no no no NO no absolutely not, I don't say that he is a corporate lackey in disguise. I say that he MIGHT be a corporate lackey in disguise. For all I know. I wish and hope that he is not and that he could win. But you do make a point, why didn't he win this year? Does that prove he is not a corporate lackey in disguise then?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. "non-existant enemy" so true.. the US has no enemies, it never did. The US has created it's own enemies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. "non-existant enemy" so true.. the US has no enemies, it never did. The US has created it's own enemies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. agreed. Military industrial complex.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. So the second you can't compile a reasonable counter-argument, or disprove your opponent's argument you will simply degenerate into using ad-hominem?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. So the second you can't compile a reasonable counter-argument, or disprove your opponent's argument you will simply degenerate into using ad-hominem?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. So the second you can't compile a reasonable counter-argument, or disprove your opponent's argument you will simply degenerate into using ad-hominem?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. So the second you can't compile a reasonable counter-argument, or disprove your opponent's argument you will simply degenerate into using ad-hominem?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. I get so tired of ignorant nonsense about "wars for oil" from America hating fascists like Wrong Paul, & you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


six − = 2

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>