2. The Second Amendment is analogous. Should a private company be allowed to sell guns to people who may use then use those guns against the U.S. Government or others? The answer is yes, but there are limitations on how and to whom. The same principle applies on the national level. The U.S. Government saw no harm in arming Iraq during its war with Iran during the 80s. Less than a decade later we were at war with Iraq. Should a private company also have been allowed to sell weapons to Iraq? I don’t see why not. There was no clear and present danger to our national security. There are laws like “state secrets” laws designed to protect our national security. These laws should not be broken, and neither should gun sales laws. The Second Amendment is analogous.

Did I miss something? Did Ron Paul suggest that we should sell our nuclear secrets to hostile countries?

3. I don’t believe we would be justified in breaking the blockade “for whatever reason”. If Iran had a legitimate reason for the blockade, well then far be it from us to break it. If Congress declares the blockade to be an Act of War against us, then sure we could go break it with a declaration of war—but personally, I’m loathe to consider purely economic actions to be acts of war. Oil is a dwindling, non-renewable resource, and the sooner we wean ourselves from it, the better off we’ll be.

I don’t find it particularly helpful to engage in these sorts of unlikely hypotheticals. As the first commenter noted, Iran depends on trade through the strait as much as we do.

4. It’s as if you don’t want us to ask: Why is China aiming missiles at Taiwan. Should we assume that it’s purely aggressive empire-building? It sounds silly, but this is how we get ourselves into trouble. We go around meddling in the business of other nations and we get entangled.
If Taiwan invites us to provide security within its established territory, then perhaps we can work something out. This could be seen as a sort of free trade in security services. It’s somewhat analagous to our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia, which Ron Paul is against, but each situation is unique. We shouldn’t feel an obligation to defend other nations, pro bono. Possible costs and benefits to OUR nation must be taken into account. In American tort law, there is no liability for a bystanders failure to help another in distress. There is a good reason for this: What risks are involved for the bystander, and are these risks acceptable?
Now, if Taiwan wants us to start World War III by invading the sovereign nation of China, well then I must respectfully decline this invitation. A president’s primary concern is for the well-being of his own country. A president should not go ahead and be hero on behalf of the American people if this places to great of a burden on them. A huge tax burden, not to mention increasing security risks, are things for a president to consider.

I wouldn’t draw a bright line rule against defense, but I’d like for a president to put the interests of his own nation first.

2. That’s a broad and loaded question, because there are many technologies that someone could “claim” to have military purposes (like jet engines, microchips, radar, satellites, etc) and we’ve already seen extensions of the definition of “hostile”. I’m afraid I’d be very much on a case by case basis for this and be wary of people trying to persuade the president to prevent this or that from going overseas because of the levels of self interest involved in restricting trade.

3. International Water access should not be restricted by any country and therefore all countries have a right to stop Naval blockades in international waters (I continue to disagree with the blockade of Cuba by Kennedy).

4. Taiwan has not been recognized as a completely autonomous nation and only if they are and ask for American assistance should our Navy be sent to help.

Doug,

You may feel Paul is unable to understand these realities by the rhetoric he preaches, but I believe him to be very realistic about the nature of the world around us, but asks himself first “do I need to do something” rather than just assuming the answer to that question is always “yes” and continuing immediately on to military or economic solutions. He strikes me as reasoned and informed about situations and not likely to fly off the hip about these situations, much more restrained than either Guliani or McCain. Those two are shoot from the hip reactionists and more likely to act first, think second than Paul or some of the other candidates. That’s one of the reason’s I detest and fear them. They have the cavalier attitude that got us where we are today (apparently at war with Islam). I can’t say Paul would or would not respond in the best possible way, but I think the mentality he brings is much more reasoned and careful than anything I’ve heard from the other candidates.

2.
A) Rhetoric and propaganda should be recognized as such. We are quite able to monitor foreign military actions, and if a nation *ACTS* aggressively towards us or our allies, then we react appropriately (with war being the last option and subject to a Congressional declaration of war). We should react to actions, not to words.
B) The U.S. (and all countries) should seek to end use of nuclear technology here and abroad. (my opinion)

3.
If Iran were to interfere with a U.S. registered mercantile ship in international waters, Naval enforcement of internationally protected trading routes (for at least our own vessels) is warranted. Aggressive force is constitutionally prohibited without a declaration of war from Congress.

4.
It would be allowable to send them to international waters surrounding Taiwan… The U.S. has recognized the P.R.C. claims to Taiwan as legitimate. invading a foreign country to intervene in a civil war is an aggressive act of invasion and is not warranted. To make this action legitimate would require a U.S. declaration that Taiwan is NOT a state belonging to the P.R.C. and a declaration of war would be required to intervene on the bahalf of a foreign country.

—

The only difficult question you have posed is “should we export nuclear technology”. This is a tough philosophical debate since Nuclear power is among the cheapest and cleanest forms of generating electricity currently available to mankind. Denying electricity to nations in need is unamerican, yet proliferation of such a dangerous technology is also unamerican… this is a very difficult question indeed.

–

The remainder of your questions seek to reinforce the idea that our military needs to be used frequently, forcefully and at the whim of one man. I hope you and millions of other Americans will learn the risk this poses… SOON

Since when is it imperialism to maintain a fleet to deter attack from a powerful opponent? Based on the fact that Japan had expanded its reach quiet violently around the Pacific Rim and mainland Asia, it’s not imperialism to possess a powerful Navy, it’s common sense. And despite the fact that these wars involved territories that were colonial possessions of various nations prior to World War II, the United States committed no act of imperialism in the 30s or 40s to set this particular war off. It was all instigated by Japan’s conquests and capability to attack us (which they did).

Imperialism on our part would have led to the war if we’d attacked the Japanese for expanding into Malaya and the Dutch East Indes. Imperialism on our part would have led to the conflict if we’d sent out own troops to invade those areas first to seize resources. Neither happened and the…the Japanese expansion had to do with Japan’s imperialistic aspirations, not those of the U.S. Our foray into imperialistic expansion had ended a couple of decades prior.

Again, historical revisionism on your part.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 9, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

Do you think allies are bought? Apparently you have to pay for your friends. In RP’s world other countries would no longer hate us for imposing our military strength to get what we want.

1. What is the appropriate way for the United States to respond in the wake of a major terrorist attack committed by an organized group that is receiving shelter and support from a foreign government which refuses to turn over the leadership of said terrorist organization upon demand?

By natural right, a victim has the right to pursue a wrongdoer and demand compensation for injuries suffered. And if that wrongdoer is in league with others, the victim has the right to demand compensation from them to the extent of their involvement. The victim also has the right to hire or contract with others to do the pursuit for him and to recover from the wrongdoers the costs of apprehending them.

Problem is, the US is not really any of those. No one hires or contracts with the US to provide security – the US has arrogated to itself that power and denied others the opportunity of assisting the victims. That in itself is criminal, albeit less so than the terrorist attacks. In a more just world, the US wouldn’t even exist. So, prescribing what the US should do in a response to an attack on Americans is a complex case.

What I do know for sure is that, whatever the US does in response, it sure as hell has no right to compel me to participate in it.

Well, anyways, here goes my 4 answers:

#1: if the attack was committed on US soil, territory over which the USG is basically contracted with to defend, then Congress has authority to do anything up to, and including, declare war. I think Pres Paul would perhaps first go the route of Marque and Reprisal as a stepping stone.

#2: no

#3: no, but he wouldn’t stand against other entities doing something about it.

#4: see #3

Making things “more expensive” and “inconvenient” is not the same as killing Americans. Consumers who are short-sighted enough to buy all their goods from a single unstable supplier will always be at risk of radical price and supply fluctuations. The best cure for this myopia is to suffer its downside a few times.

If there is demonstrable “clear and present danger” to American lives, the government should step in. That’s one of its primary roles.

Using an American military to tailor other nations’ economies or governmental structures to our liking is not part of the constitution, and American taxes and lives should not be applied to it.

Please, many of us are well aware of many intricate details in the history of foreign policy. I know my history as well as any of you, being educated in history, economics, and political science at Hillsdale College, and studying con law under Clarence Thomas…prior to law school. Non-interventionists, including myself, understand and fully comprehend that other nation states’ governments will act in their individual self interests… perhaps you should study Public Choice economics… look up James Buchanan.

You repeatedly associate non-intervention with isolationism, accusing us of advocating a “fortress” America–a fallacious assertion without any merit. We merely advocate that the federal government be held to the same standard internationally as we hold it domestically, that is, that it is prohibited from encroachment on the rights of others so long as they are peaceable.

LMFAO…

Who’s Otto?

tie xD

Comment by MY — October 9, 2007

From the movie “A Fish Called Wanda”

(“It’s Al-Q-q-q-qaeda C-c-c-c-oming to k-k-k-kill me!”).

“The pre-emptive strike’s intent was to protect Imperial Japan’s advance into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies – for their natural resources such as oil and rubber – by neutralizing the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Both the US and Japan had long-standing contingency plans for war in the Pacific focusing on the other’s surface fleet, developed during the 1930s as tension between the two countries steadily increased.”

“The Japanese high command was certain any attack on the United Kingdom’s colonies would inevitably bring the U.S. into the war.[8] A pre-emptive strike appeared the only way Japan could avoid U.S. interference in the Pacific.” (wikipedia)

It is obvious that the US could have avoided Pearl Harbor if she had

(a) not behaved as an imperial, colonial power in the Pacific

(b) not maintained the military alliance with Great Britain.

Non-interventionism (not isolationism) is the only sustainable basis for the foreign policy of a republic.

The United States may learn this lesson one day, perhaps after the hundredth major terrorist attack in retaliation for supporting the Jews over the Arabs, or for supporting Britain over her enemies, or some other foreign conflict we decide to poke our noses into. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has the basic common sense to let foreigners get on with their own affairs, and look after our own borders.

Nice historical revisionism. FDR’s Lend-Lease Act pushed us towards war, but there was no hesitance about it once we got bombed by Japan and Germany stupidly declared war on us the next day. FDR might have contributed to the pre-conditions for war, but he certainly didn’t cause the war itself. Economic competition with Japan is one thing…but we weren’t bombing their country prior to their attack on Pearl Harbor. And their aggressive military expansion was well underway in China before our involvement.

Nice historical revisionism. FDR’s Lend-Lease Act pushed us towards war, but there was no hesitance about it once we got bombed by Japan and Germany stupidly declared war on us the next day. FDR might have contributed to the pre-conditions for war, but he certainly didn’t cause the war. Economic competition with Japan is one thing…but we weren’t bombing their country prior to their attack on Pearl Harbor. And their aggressive military expansion was well underway in China before our involvement.

The US would be uniquely FREE of natural enemies, if it were not for the tendency of people like Mr. Mataconis to seek foreign entanglements.