The 2016 Candidate Republicans Agree With Most on Foreign Policy Is The Last Person You’d Guess
Which makes the results of recent polls even more surprising. From our friends at Rare:
According to a June Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, “58% of the Republican respondents said the war in Afghanistan wasn’t worth it, compared with the 37% who said it was.” In just a year’s time 21 percent more people believe that war in Afghanistan wasn’t worth it.*A related Journal/NBC/Annenberg survey conducted days later found similar erosion in views about Iraq found that “46% of Republicans said the war in Iraq wasn’t worth it, compared with the 44% who said it was.” What’s more, “63% [say] the war in Afghanistan wasn’t worth it, compared with the 39% who held that view in January of 2013.”*An April Wall Street Journal poll showed that 45 percent of Republicans think America should be less involved in world affairs, compared to 29 percent who believe the opposite.
So
from the surveys above, it is pretty apparent that a large number of
Republicans feel that our country’s two most recent wars were mistakes
and that America is too involved in world affairs in general.
That sounds uncannily like something Senator Rand Paul would say; he recently deemed U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East a “disaster” and regularly argues for less involvement in world affairs.
Before
the party completely writes off Paul as a presidential contender,
perhaps they should ask themselves: Are we sure we don’t agree with him?
Of course he has the best foreign policy. The rest of the herd has no experience in foreign policy at all. Let alone governing anything.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post but it asks more questions than it answers. Let me pose the question from another perspective. Do more American voters believe the wars were unnecessary than those who believe that it was?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the situation, less than forty percent of those eligible to vote, actually took the trouble to do so at the last Presidential poll. If this figure is agreed, and if the low percentage of Repubs who argue yes as justification of the wars, then the overall percentage of those opposed will probably be much lower.
So, what does the average American think? I am not asking of those here, you are all committed to the ideology of one side or the other, what I would like to hear are the voices of the men and woman in the bars and at the football games. Perhaps they are similar to Australians, not very interested and liable to change their votes whenever one party or the other promises them something for nothing.
The article does make the point that America is perhaps too involved in world affairs; with this I tend to agree. On the other hand I wonder if your country can afford not to be involved. The space occupied by American power over the past half century has been of great benefit to the free world. If America now withdraws from the field to concentrate on your historical position of America first and always, the vacuum left will be filled by leftist nations who hitch a ride on the coat tails of China. Could this not be the spark for another cold war?
King, what would be your reaction if the US withdrew substantially from your neighborhood? What if we no longer were slaves to foreign oil? What if we encourage Japan to arm themselves offensively? What if we allow China an open check book to dominate South East Asia?
DeleteIs your country capable of protecting itself?
William, my thanks for the questions. I shall try to respond in a factual manner and other readers can add their opinions.
ReplyDeleteHow would I react if America withdrew from S E Asia? Answer is I would immediately be fearful of the void left by a Western Power. I would also be concerned that America had unilaterally withdrawn from several treaties, particularly the ANZUS pact which has lasted since soon after WW2.I would expect an immediate expansion of China within the region and this would be followed within a decade by attempted global expansion similar to that which occurred by Russia and the USSR following the partition of Europe post WW2. In short, America, by withdrawing from the region now, would ensure massive economic and military difficulties down the track.
What if we were no longer the slaves to foreign oil? This I feel would be more of an economic difficulty than a decision by foreign affairs officials. It would certainly allow America to withdraw forces from the Middle East, I cannot see major ramifications for the Far East, this region imports oil
Encourage Japan to arm themselves offensively.
This is now slowly occurring. Japanese Prime Minister Abe is in Australia currently. Today, Abe and our Prime Minister Abbott signed two agreements, a free trade agreement and a military cooperation agreement. Abe was also given the privilege of addressing both houses of parliament, in the same way Bush and Obama have done in recent years. In particular Australia is now looking closely at the new Japanese submarine design and possible build cooperation is on the cards.
It is interesting that Japan has in the last few days announced a change in military programming to switch from purely self defence capability to a partly aggressive capacity. This of course is a direct reaction to drum banking by China and in particular a dispute over sovereignty of some remote offshore islands.
What if we allow China an open cheque book? William, here I think you demonstrate an old problem within the Republican makeup. China already has the open cheque book, she holds more of your paper than any other foreign country and you simply cannot see the ramifications of this position. Of the many trillions of worthless paper on issue, Americans own about fifty percent I believe. I ask, can America service the debit on the overseas component? And for how long before your currency will go the same way as Zimbabwe?
Can we defend ourselves without America? Your last question and the answer is not at present, we can however rely on Asian Allies including Japan, on European and Commonwealth nations and of course on America. Even if you withdraw from the region there will be treaties to be honoured. I think also that the special relationship between our two countries will endure.
Finally, an area you did not mention.
What is going to happen to the Western world when the Jihadists on the externs of the Muslim countries become all powerful within their homelands? Even now there are Australian followers of the jihadists fighting in Syria. They can return to Australia as heroes and begin to spread violence and terror here.911 was perhaps only a foretaste of what is to come throughout the world in a decade or so.
So there you are an honest assessment and I hope I have not wasted an hour to receive no feedback
Cheers from Aussie
This is actually a pretty interesting thread.
DeleteKing, I read this "In short, America, by withdrawing from the region now, would ensure massive economic and military difficulties down the track." and thought back to our discussion on empire. We don't own the oil in the ground of the middle east, and we don't own the water between us and China. But this small distinction is irrelevant to anyone who interferes with either. And Willliam, right below this post, makes a dead accurate opening comment about the power consolidated in out bloated military industrial complex. Heck, that could be one of my stupid comments word for word.
This presents, however, a huge problem for Rand Paul. Much as Americans complain in hindsight about what we've wasted on war, I firmly believe that the majority of America was a pure bloodthirst after 9/11 and were ready to fight anyone to show the world we are still the toughest. I go back to my rantings on cost. We love the feeling of superiority at first, and regret the cost later. We got a ton of cheap goods and lived like royalty on a strong dollar for 20 years or so, and now we have no manufacturing base. Its similar with our wars. I'll put some independent thoughts about Paul at the bottom.
King, thanks for the responses. The open check book question was some sort of mobile spell check mistake, my bad. But I do appreciate the answer. I promise to study your responses this evening and weigh in. I hope others on the board will take up some of the issues.
ReplyDeleteKing, I don't see the US removing ourselves from you neighborhood substantially any time soon. Despite Obama's fake pivot I think other heads in our bloated military industrial complex hold to many cards to let their empire be diminished.
DeleteAs we Frack our way towards energy independence more oil will be flowing to China and the Far East from the potentiates. Oil prices will moderate as our appetite for the foreign stuff wanes. And it will wane. China and India, as will your country, will benefit with cheaper supplies. Perhaps some of China's coal driven pollution problems will also wane as oil and natural gas are slowly substituted.
The Japanese-Korean question is the wild card in the entire shadow play. Their economy's are tremendous counter balancing engines to China's expansion.
There is another argument that having China hold our useless paper, as you call it, is really a benefit to the US. We benefit from obtaining very low cost goods, while they hold low interest bearing paper that will soon be even more worthless as inflation rears it's ugly head again as it will inevitably do.
Relying on the European and Commonwealth nations to support you in a perilous situation is a pipe dream. Think back to the Falkland conflict and the amount of time it took Maggie to get a few ships to the South Atlantic. What is the nearest European naval battle group presently in your area?
Treaties are nice but as you are aware the US will probably be aligning with Russia, and possibly Iran, to reign in the newly established Califate. Strange bedfellows indeed. I posit that once a substantial massing of Islamic extremist elements occurs quite a few cruise missiles will be heading to the desert. Treaties, well,,are just pieces of paper when the shit hits the fan.
Thanks again for your thoughts King.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
Deleterick0427July 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM
King in reply to your Question yes a majority of Americans felt that the wars of the last decade are a waste. The breakdown 71% feel that Iraq was a waste of time treasure and American blood. And 50% want no US responsibility towards solving the current crisis there.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-majority-americans-feel-war-iraq-wasnt-worth-it
67% of Americans feel that Afghanistan is a waste.
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/files/Studies_Publications/POS/Survey2012/Afghanistan.aspx
What one has to ask King is what did we gain. Answer is besides capturing Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders nothing. And that has only served to delay them as they form new groups with brand new players. What we lost was 6800 Americans whose lives we will find in the long run are wasted same as the Vietnam War where we threw 58000 American lives to the wind for absolutely nothing. We lost how many trillions of dollars much of it to the corruption and greed of those administering the money spending the money and corrupt Iraqi officials. Trillions that we now blame our current president for spending. We also now have 1000's of wounded soldiers that we must care for the rest of their lives because they were ordered into senseless conflicts. We have young men who cannot get their lives together an commit suicide over their experiences in far off wastelands.
You know King what is called here in American "the greatest generation" fought along side our Allies including both your countries your homeland of Britain and your adopted Australia and together they whipped all that was bad in the world. They had the take and hold strategy and the hell with the hearts and minds. But my friend when all was over they were also able to win the piece and bring their adversaries into the world peacefully and successfully. Today the world could never dream of doing that.
As for the caliphate fuck em. Let them kill each other forming the damn thing. Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. It's really all they want. A caliphate, with drawl of foreign troops and no more Israel. I think it is time to give them 2 of those 3 situations. Israel has the same right to exist as they have to form their caliphate. They have to give on that one.
Really William? How long did it take to get the British ships to the Falkland Islands? You haven't a clue do you William of the hyper informed Tea party. Three fucking days William. In three days Maggie Thatcher had ships enroute to the waters of the Falkland Islands. How long William did it take us to get to oh lets say Kuwait in 1990. August 4th 1990 Saddam Hussein took Kuwait We were not ready to do any kind of combat until Jan 16 1991. Maggie Thatcher wins.
DeleteFracking our way to energy independence another tea party pipe dream. Drill baby drill your wells are dry in less then two years. The only way to gain total energy independence is renewables and I don't mean sinking another new short term well.
As far as the nearest European battle group, William ala Hilary what does it matter. Australia has had since WW1 a pretty damn dependable navy that has fought side by side with our Navy in every instance required since WW1. And the Aussies are tough. They do not run and hide they stand side by side with their American Allies. You know William you and your tea party wing nuts greatly fear this globalization that's upon us. Well my friend Britain, France, Australia, and the US are the four charter members of that club. You've got some studying to do before you start trouncing on Kings countries and his beliefs.
It took the British task force almost a month to arrive and sink the Belgrano. Hostilities began April 2, 1982 and ended June 17th.
DeleteThe Falkland are a hell if a lot closer than Australia ric.
And for those of you that are out of the country MSNBC polls are equal to used toilet paper.
DeleteAnd the main point of the topic is that Americans are moving towards Rand Paul's ideas on foreign policy.
DeleteDuring the war, Britain suffered 258 killed and 777 wounded. In addition, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels were sunk. For Argentina, the Falklands War cost 649 killed, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 captured. In addition, the Argentine Navy lost a submarine, a light cruiser, and 75 fixed-wing aircraft.
DeleteRic
DeleteThanks for your replies to my questions; the stats are pretty much in line with what I had expected. Next time you are in a bar, try asking the other patrons for their opinions; I always do that when I meet by accident Americans who are visiting our country. Now to your castigation of William as you came to my defense. My thanks but I really did not take offence at Williams’s comments. I had after all responded to a set of questions posed by William and his response was quite reasonable in the circumstances. I would take very minor issue with one point you make. My friend, we are not a European Nation with a European navy. I realize there is difficulty in recognizing the differences but the "Crown" and the Royal part of our name is ceremonial only. We are in all things a totally independent nation, free to conduct our affairs in accordance with the decisions made by our elected government. Quite soon we shall become a republic but the method we use to achieve that status will be peaceful (unlike the ancestors of many of my friends over 200 years ago).
It is perhaps interesting and instructive for Americans to understand the situation here. We could become a Republic tomorrow if we so desired. Some years ago we held a referendum whereby the people were asked to vote yes or no. The end result was that we voted no because the politicians were too dumb ass to get the wording correct and they could not agree as to who would be our head of state. Mate, we are so bloody dumb, we don’t deserve a republic. Somehow I think Australia will wait for the present queen to pass on before we make that final decision to break free. The British Crown has already indicated it is the decision for the Australian people to make, what William would probably not understand is that we are generally quite happy to maintain the status quo.
Cheers from Aussie,
Just because it took 30 days to sink an Argentine ship doesn't mean it took 30 days to get there. the British had already reclaimed South Georgia Island by April 25 21 days after the conflict started.
ReplyDeleteThe closest European navy to Australia is in Australia dumbass. The Royal Australian Navy operates under the crown as a British commonwealth and although it is not as big as our navy it is powerful enough to meet most of the needs of that part of the Pacific. Surprisingly it isn't that much farther to Australia then the Falklands. The Falklands lie 8000 miles from London. Australia is 10000.
You took this topic off topic by attacking Kings country/countries.
Why are MSN polls so wrong? because they don't say what you want them to.
Go to Gallop then. Although closer the majority of Americans still see both wars as a waste.
William,
ReplyDeleteThough I don't believe Rand Paul can win against Republican candidate Hillary Clinton, it is going to be an interesting time heading forward. The boomers in power today, IMO, exhibit a bi-polar like thinking on foreign policy. Some times they want to be Wilsonian, other times they want to "create parkinglots" in the countries they believe are a threat to us. Even stranger, I think they believe we are actually accomplishing both at the same time, kind of like an abusive parent who beats the crap out of their kid because they love them so much.
Rand Paul, in some ways, is a modern day Smedley Butler (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf) and he is taking a whack at the MIC that is well deserved. Taken to a logical conclusion, his message is that it is time to beat our swords BACK into plowshares. While this may have the intellectual support of BOTH you and me and quite a few others in this country, the reality is that likely nothing will be done. Even if Paul were POTUS, the demand from the MIC to continue our wars of agression and demand from those who believe we can't be safe in Kansas if the Mullahs are allowed to openly say death to America, will be too much headwind to overcome.
I've said before I am not flatly opposed to everything libertarian. However, for the moment, a moderate libertarian is a contradiction in terms. Paul's views on foreign policy could likely find quite a bit of support outside of the political spectrum he owns. But his views on this cannot be separated from his religious views and so it goes with the tea party in general. At the risk of offending those of my parents age here, I'm simply tired of the endless pissing match that has occurred between the left and right of the boomer generation. Liberals bombed America to make their point, conservatives have bombed the rest of the world and stacked our SCOTUS with Christian Mullahs to make their point. I've had enough of both. If true libertarians are able to shed the religious element that has found a temporary home with the tea party, they might actually be able to get something done in Washington
Max I ask you how can the Tea Party movement, as libertarian as it is in some quarters, ever shed it's religious element when it is founded on the belief in inalienable rights?
DeleteWe do not consent to live under the rule of man, or Queen in Kingstons case, but happily abide by His guidelines as laid out for us by our founding fathers.
But Rand I believe will continue to grow on you Max. And besides, after the past twenty or so years of progressive POTUS', the country is ready to return to it's roots. My point to King above was simply that those who have relied on us for quite some time will have to adjust to the néw norm of the US behaving in a much less wide stance.
Much of this has to do with abundant energy supplies being exploited here at home.
Politics Profit and Faith appear to be the credos by which the world tries to exist and resolve its conflicts, both spiritual and material. We have a discussion here between three or four people who are either trying to prove a point or simply pushing a position enumerated above.
DeletePolitics in my view is nothing more than an expression of greed. Firstly the self interest of the politician and then in the national interest as he tries to justify his existence in the everyday world. Apart from a few notables, all eventually fall and are forgotten often by their contemporaries and certainly by their successors
Profit is the result of greed; it is also the expression of human nature and is what has driven many, including me, for a long lifetime as we tried to provide for our families. Profit in and of itself is good if limited only to that which is necessary rather than that which is desired. I confess to ignoring this point for my working life and apart from giving back excesses, it is too late to change a bad habit.
Faith is the worrisome element. So much is done in the name of faith and so often, the result is misery for those of other faiths. 911 is perhaps the best example in America during recent times. The perpetrators considered themselves justified in the name of their prophet. In 1692 another group justified their actions by citing their faith. The good people of Salem simply had no options. In 1859 John Brown was involved in a dust up at Harpers Ferry. During his trial there was much emphasis placed on the God Given right to uphold justice etc there was little evidence that any God given right existed for Mr Brown. I note a sentence from William in a recent post QuoteWe do not consent to live under the rule of man, or Queen in Kingston’s case, but happily abide by His (Gods) guidelines as laid out for us by our founding fathers. Unquote... William my friend, you tread on dangerous ground I think. What was good for the founders, and I for one consider the founders to have been the wisest group of men since the hay day of the Roman Empire, is not necessarily good in its absolute form for the population today. Faith thrives on ignorance and fades away when exposed to light, science and rational debate. Why until quite recently was the mass said in Latin?
So there you are; we need a new dogma, a new financial system and a new awareness that the world as we know it is going to hell in a hand basket because we follow the credo of Politics, Profit and Faith.
Cheers from Aussie
And there you have it in a nut shell. In Kingsland every brain is wired in series, every emotion in lockstep with the average, every motive tied to rotten politicians, greedy money changers, and licentious clergy.
DeleteWill no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
Henry II
Will no one rid me of this troublesome Tea Party?
Barack Hussein Obama
In Kingsland, as in Obama minion land, differing components in grey matter must conform and reside in a massive pool of intellectual mediocrity.
William
DeleteA good post with plenty of debating points. There is hope for you yet if you still remember Henry 11 and Thomas Becket! It is your conclusion William I find disturbing. You want to plant me in a compartment containing all who do not totally subscribe to the zealotry which appears to be the identifying smoke signal sent out by the Tea party.
It is the idea of being compartmentalised which I fear most. I want and indeed need the intellectual freedom to move where I want. To explore new ideas and new places and to exchange those ideas with others is my desire. I do not need intellects with which I agree; that would benefit no one. I do however look for minds which differ and which have the interest and ability to respond to ideas, opinions and suggestions I offer. In Williams’s box, I would be a cabbage; I would never tolerate such conditions.
To be forcibly placed in some ideological compartment would be galling in the extreme, that William can happily reside there is a matter for William. For me, the chains of bondage would be so irksome I would struggle to escape and in so doing I wonder if I would not be reliving the very ideals encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence!
So there you are William, are you still living in 1776 or have you broken your chains so that you may fly free in the world mankind has either created or stuffed in the two centuries since?
Cheers from Aussie