The United States Shouldn't Involve Itself in Foreign Disputes Unless National Security is at Stake

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war' - latimes.com


Texas Congressman and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul at an event honoring veterans at the Iowa State fairgrounds.

Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has generated some heat by neoconservatives and from his opposition in the GOP presidential field because of his stance that America should mind its own business and not involve itself in the Middle East and in foreign disputes.  He's been charged as being an "isolationist" because he's been critical of the U.S.'s involvement in the Iraq War and Libya.  He's also been opposed to all the nation-building that's taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I've watched some of the GOP debates from Fox News and have seen Rick Santorum, another GOP presidential contender, dispute some of Paul's claims, especially when it deals with rogue nations such as Iran.  I won't address Iran right at the moment, but for the most part I concur with Paul that the United States needs to mind its own business when it comes for foreign affairs.  I also concur with Paul that anytime our leaders are contemplating sending U.S. troops into war, there needs to be a Congressional declaration of war.  The last time that America officially declared war on another country was on December 8, 1941 against Japan as the result of the Pearl Harbor strike and on December 11, 1941 against Germany and Hitler's Nazi Regime.  Ever since that time Congress has never declared war against another country.  That's not the way it should be.  What if Iran was to launch a surprise attack upon the United States, does Congress have to declare war before it strikes back against Iran?  Of course not.  If the United States were in imminent danger and they needed to defend themselves, they should do so.  That's common sense.  The Constitution grants the U.S. that right to defend themselves if the U.S. is in imminent danger.  However, there's a major difference between striking back when in imminent danger vs. taking military action against Iraq, who posed no imminent threat to the U.S. If the U.S. is going to take the offensive against another country and there's no immediate need to strike back, then a Congressional declaration of war is to be utilized.  Why is it important for a declaration of war to be made?  When Congress declares war against another country or possibly terrorist organization, for example, it's telling the world that the U.S. stands united to stopping whatever threat looms our way in the Western Hemisphere and acts of aggression won't be tolerated.  It also prepares the citizenry of the United States to do whatever it takes to win the war, as was the case during World War I and World War II.  Anyone that lived during those years remember America's manufacturing hub producing war materials so our soldiers would have weapons to fight the enemy in World War II.  Also, the American media was involved in promoting the war effort as well.  War movies were also made.  It was a totally different atmosphere in America during that time vs. today.  Americans even bought war bonds to help finance the war so the federal government wouldn't be financially insolvent as a result of the costly war.  Consequently, there hasn't been any war bonds to help finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a result, they've proven to be the most costly wars the U.S. has ever fought to the tune of over a trillion dollars.

Even though charges of "isolationism" have been leveled at Ron Paul, he is correct when he says repeatedly during the GOP debates that the U.S. needs to mind its own business and stay out of the Middle East and other countries.  I totally disagree with him that U.S. sanctions against Iran are an "act of war."  Sanctions are to send a message to the aggressor country if they cause damage to the stability of the world, then they will face consequences.  That's good and proper.  It's to keep a check on the aggressor country.  It's also proper to use diplomacy to prevent a military action from taking place, if at all possible.  There does come a time when it's necessary to use military action against another country.  That time approaches when all efforts at diplomacy have failed and if military action isn't taken to stop a country with a potentate "leader", that can cause havoc around the world possibly triggering a nuclear war.  In regards to Iran, I don't think we need to authorize a strike at the present, but if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is determined to wipe Israel off the face of the map and start a nuclear showdown with the U.S. and other countries around the world, then military action will be necessary.  We don't need a repeat of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  We don't need to be in the business of rebuilding Iran and trying to implement democracy in that country.  Democracy will never take root in Iran.  But the State Department needs to keep a watch on Ahmadinejad in case sanctions fail against Iran, especially with Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, which will make it difficult for other countries to ship oil to the Persian Gulf. 

Ever since World War II, the United States has involved itelf in conflicts around the world for the reason to "detain communism".  Those efforts failed.  The military brass started sending troops to Korea and then later to Vietnam to fight a "no-win" war.  That's haunted us ever since the 60's.  The latest wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are no-win wars.  What are the positive results of U.S. troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 8-10 years.  Consequently, it hasn't helped much.  I don't say that in reference to our soldiers.  Our soldiers have done a masterful job in those wars.  Our soldiers have performed well when you consider their hands have been tied behind their backs.  I blame our political leadership in the White House (both Bush and Obama) Congress, and the Pentagon for the no-win wars in the countries I just mentioned.  There's no excuse.  I believe this is no accident.  I believe the globalists desire to tear this nation apart both economically and militarily speaking.  The United States is losing its sovereignty.  It's a tragedy. 

In closing, the U.S. should stay out of foreign affairs unless it's vital to the interests of the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere.  Otherwise, we need to mind our own business as Ron Paul mentions so often.  I know the neoconservatives call that isolationism, but it just makes sense.   What business do we have in intermingling with foreign affairs when there's no security risk at stake for the U.S.?  It's stupid and it's time we pull our military from many of these countries around the world where our presence isn't necessary.  We need to go back to the Constitution once again when it comes to fighting wars.