The world with a Ron Paul presidency

Let's assume that Ron Paul wins the presidency. Let's also assume that he has a Congress that will go with his foreign policies 110%. And let's assume that his policies will not change. I am curious as to what the world would look like 2-10 years if he does implement his policies; i.e. what would the polarity of the world look like, would there be an increase in large general wars, arms races, WMD proliferation, responses to states harboring terrorists that have attacked the American homeland, US relations with other states (in particular US-Israeli and US-China relations), etc.

 

I'm sure that China would take back Taiwan and North Korea would, with the help of China, finally take South Korea. Paul won't interfere since its not an attack on us. I'm sure Israel would be under attack as well, possibly forcing them to use nukes. More genocides throughout Africa more than likely.

 

Worldwide economic chaos and regional wars leading to a nuclear exchange. Let's face it, America's foreign policy, ecomomic strength plus the projection of its military might are essential to global stability. Paul's presidency would be a disaster.

 

The truth is that when I try to see the world with Paul as president, it's kind of gray, washed-out...like his statements. You can take them in many different ways. Would he be better than Obama...perhaps, but in a very different way, more polarizing.

 

Could you be more specific? His statements are quite clear--he is not a proponent of American hegemony, wants to withdraw foreign aid, and get our bases out of the 92 countries we are in. I've read enough on foreign policy to where I have an opinion on what it would look like, but I'd like to see what his proponents envision for international relations in a Paul presidency. The problem with policymaking is that people have all sorts of solutions, but don't plan what the result looks like once the solutions are implemented. That is the perennial feature of politics. That's fine domestically in a stable country, except if you mess up on an international level, the result could be millions dead.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."--John Kenneth Gailbraith,

 

Whats the world going to look like...what is America going to look like, when we go bankrupt and can't provide what you guys think we provide at all? Then what is to stop those people that we have pissed off till we ran out of money come looking for payback? What will happen when we don't have our military to protect the borders because the military turned to mercinaries? You guys really believe there is a way to turn this sinking ship around some how with only future spending cuts?

 

That is not the question. Our debt crisis is not a matter of speculation, although most of our debt comes from entitlements rather than defense spending. Defense spending is projected to decrease over the next few years, while entitlement spending is expected to increase as the Baby Boomers retire. This is what will make the US go bankrupt, not defense spending alone. Also, the world is expected to go multipolar within the next 50 years, so US hegemony will decline in favor of countries like China and India. The question then arises of how fast the world would go multipolar under a Ron Paul presidency if we withdraw completely from the world and completely upset the balance of power worldwide. I think you're assuming that multipolar powers would come after the US and we would turn quickly into a proxy state. I don't even think Ron Paul would assert that. Chinese, Indian, Russian, and Brazilian military doctrines are not like American military doctrines. The next great power, China, really has no interest in an offensive war with the US. They are more interested in resource collection and unification with Taiwan than fighting us.

 

World with a Ron Paul presidency, here is my guess.

8 years version - the US would start to grow again and the people would get an improved lifestandard, then democrats would start to say: you know, we already have too much, look at Bob the lazy, he has so little, it is clear that we need to tax the remaining 99,99% of the population just to help him get a "decent" house, "decent" food, "decent" healthcare acess, "decent" toilet paper, "decent" clothing and a "decent" quality of life to his children and woman, Bob and his family are a victim of laziness anyway. Then history would just repeat itself.

4 years version: The economy would tank, dems would blame him for everything, then right when the next dem got in power they would attribute the good economy economy to the new president and Obama (horrible outcome?).

As for what would happen with the rest of the world, Iran would finish its nuclear bomb and keep it in a beatiful and expensive military base, because that is the only reasonable thing a country can do with a nuke nowadays. China would keep showing how they managed to massively improve its people standard of living (an improvement from a really bad standard to a very bad standard). Indians and Brazilians would keep blaming corruption for all their problems.

 

What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*).

If we elect a President who favors peace over war, the world will not end...LOL

 

The world is not a peaceful place, never has been and never will be. You either engage in it and try to manipulate circumstances to your favor or you are at the whim of whatever direction the world takes.

This happened to us in both WWI and WWII. Had we actually been pro-active there is a good chance neither of those would have reached the proportions they did, thereby saving tens of millions of lives.

 

if ron paul was president:

the world: would fall into the hole it has been climbing into for quite some time.

the u.s.: would be one of the few countries left with a life raft, and we'd be rowing away from the clamoring horde of drowning fools that would threaten to pull us under if we remained close by.

that about sums it up

 

Disregarding your rant about domestic policy (my question deals with international relations), what you say about foreign policy will occur regardless. In other words, you believe the status quo would continue under a Ron Paul presidency, completely disregarding that American hegemony is maintaining the balance of power. You are addressing the obvious about domestic politics in other states, not international relations.

People need to stop using talking points and do some analysis here. If Ron Paul supporters are half as smart as they think they are, it shouldn't be that hard.

 

It was Thomas Paine who said pacifism was an affront to human dignity, because if there is nothing worth fighting for there's no reason for living.

 

First of all, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I don't live in the US, so I do not support any US polititian. I simpathize with his ideas though.

As for Global balance of power, the US will profit from most conflicts (especially conflicts Israel may cause) that could eventually arise. But, unlike you, I do not think that the US is the major contributor to stability in most parts of the world. Few governments are willing to start wars, they may bark, but they won't byte. The only thing I believe is a valid worry to americans is an imperialist country trying to take over oil supplies around the world, other than that, not much.

 

Are u wearing the tinfoil hat???

North Korea taking the south??? lol!! North Korea cant even get a freaking rocket to work and their army relies on foreign food aid!...yeah sure...


Also lets pretend it happens...WHY should America care?? why cant the region deal with that?? is the North Korea even a TREAT to the most powerful army??

 

You'll notice that I said with China's help. And they are more than capable of routing the South without our intervention. Its important for one reason which is this. Countries that invade others for land grabs very rarely stop with one if there is no opposition.

It may turn into a domino effect with all of Asia falling under China's influence. If you need me to explain the rationalization of why that's important i'd be happy too but hopefully your intelligent enough to get the point of where this leads.

 

Oh come of it. US thinks its acting like the world's police when in actuality its the school bully who keeps inflicting the damage. Many of the unrests in many parts of the world is because of US interference. Afghanistan is a prime example where the Taliban were brought into power by the US and now are a menace for the country and the world. Saddam was once a strong US ally whom the US even Iraq acquire what could be the building blocks for biological weapons. The US has constantly played a hand in the Middle East politics because of the oil resources. In other parts of Asia, the US has repeatedly used India and Pakistan as pawns in order to maintain its influence in the region specially with China being a direct neighbour. The US recently supported a military dictator in Pakistan for over a decade because he was pro US. We all know what happened in the Vietnam war. The US talks for democracy have only been a sham. In truth, they have always supported the candidate that would support the US the most irrespective of democratically elected or not and by whatever means. Its also the reason the world hates the US so much. Te US with its interventionist policies have actually made the world a lot more dangerous place. Not the other way round.

 

Most of the unrest in the world is not caused by us. We may become involved but we don't necessarily start it. All those areas you mentioned were military active before we set foot there.

 

Who is a pacifist?

There are things worth fighting for, but fighting the entire planet is freaking insane.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you are willing to go get blown up in support of the foreign policy that you believe in?

 

perhaps they will be kind enough to supply us all of the parts we need to keep our military running, while we fend them off.

 

Its only a matter of time before China decides they want to control Asia and its resources. They are getting close to being able to project enough of their force around that part of the world to effectively lock America out.

It could have disastrous effects for America economically when that happens. Our best move is to keep a strong presence in the area so that China is afraid to take that first step. If Paul was President and removed our presence from Asia you would see China begin to move in to all these regions, either militarily or just by threat. An all out war with America is probably the last thing they want but its like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it, you know someone's going to take it just because you left it for them.

 

Peddling fear... what a classical attempt at shrugging off an intellectual conversation by making assumptions and what ifs as your primary argument(s).

Let them drive the car... that car has been driven by too many Empires already and the end effect for every Empire is a crash eventually. Trying to control Humanity through coercion and violence is a pathetic example to live by. I thought America was suppose to be the shining start of morality and individualism yet, the Nation has slipped into a constant state of decay by peddling the same irrational fears you've presented. Nothing conclusive at all but, mere speculation.... While we're busy being unjust, brutal and destructive we fear another country may take our "job" in Global Brutality. How laughable.

 

China is yet to use its military to do any of the things you are proclaiming. Its all a bunch of excuses that we are taking control over Asia just because someone else might if we don't. Guess what. Asia is not part of the US. US trying to control it is just as bad as China trying to do so. You said it yourself. The US is not concerned about the other nations' sovereignty. The US wants to control their economic resources and fear and military is the best way to do so.

 

Thank you for making my point. Your right, China hasn't used its military yet because they would run up against us. And its not about us controlling Asia it's about not letting China control it. You may remember back in the 40's when another Asian country tried to control all of Asia proper, or other various times throughout history so there is a strong precedence for it.

Why you assume that if we pull out that everyone is going to be happy and getting along while gliding on rainbows and shooting glitter out of their ass is beyond me. History should have taught you better than that.

 

Every empire has failed trying to rule the world. Why do you people give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about what happens to in other parts of the world when you should only care about is our country. You people speak if America pulls out everything will go to hell. Let it happen they need to stop sucking Americas tit. Most of you play with your dick thinking your some hardasses behind some keyboard. This is for people who havent served. Are you the ones rolling out on patrols everyday in the middle east risking to get blown up by IED or getting shot up....no and for what? So some pricks may get more wealthier by using our troops as pawns cannon fodder. The establishment hidden in plain site is robbing our country until we uave nothing left...its either fight for Ron Paul our country the constitution or let the establishment drive America into the ground...