Our foreign policy is so muddled right now that its mission needs to be much better defined and more limited in nature. While I do think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is isolationalist to a degree (not trade policy) he makes some very good points about the U.S. needing to be less comingled/intertwined in other country's affairs. While I still believe that it was right for us to enter both Iraq and Afghanistan to stop both perceived and imminent threats, I also think that in the case of Libya, Egypt, Africa, and other Middle Eastern countries' uprisings that we should stay out of those countries' affairs and Ron Paul is correct in saying that we should stop policing the world unless a country would be subjected to a Rwanda-style massacre. In the case of Afghanistan we were responding to an act of war - 9/11 - just like we did after Pearl Harbor was attacked during WWII.
I do think that it is good if the United States influences other nations but should that necessarily include our military involvement? Missionaries take care of the needy all over the world. Their mission is to evangelize, help educate, assist with medical care, and bring the message of Christ around the world. Maybe missionaries would have more success at converting individuals in foreign lands into a more civilized lifestyle where people are tolerant of all religions, so that those of different faiths could coexist as equals in civil society rather than U.S. militarily try to change the countries and its people? Maybe we should leave the changing of minds, hearts, and souls to missionaries instead of having the military try to influence these peoples?
Now, if there is an imminent threat to our nation's national security I do think it would be necessary for us to respond militarily.
I do think that it is good if the United States influences other nations but should that necessarily include our military involvement? Missionaries take care of the needy all over the world. Their mission is to evangelize, help educate, assist with medical care, and bring the message of Christ around the world. Maybe missionaries would have more success at converting individuals in foreign lands into a more civilized lifestyle where people are tolerant of all religions, so that those of different faiths could coexist as equals in civil society rather than U.S. militarily try to change the countries and its people? Maybe we should leave the changing of minds, hearts, and souls to missionaries instead of having the military try to influence these peoples?
Now, if there is an imminent threat to our nation's national security I do think it would be necessary for us to respond militarily.
7 comments:
High five Teresa! You hit on something very important, it is the ideology of these nations, which makes them dangers. Militarily all of them combined could not defeat us. We need to combat their ideology not their military capabilities.
You are absolutely correct in your assertion that missionary work is the answer. The word of God has a power greater than any sword. The Caesar had armies that dominated the known world. Jesus was man without worldly power, but his gospel has had a greater impact than all the armies of the world combined.
Great post Teresa. Missionary work is the answer. We are so overextended with our military right now because we've chosen to be the world police. When boots hit the ground this does create more problems than solutions most of the time. Not only can we not afford it anymore, but a great deal of resentment towards America from not only the nation we are deploying our troops to but also that nation's friends.
History has proven that military force can never change the hearts and minds of people. It may influence their outward behavior, but it will never touch their actual beliefs.
Good post Teresa. (And I never thought I'd actually be saying that... :P)
Thanks Trestin, John, and Liberty.
My views on foreign policy and liberty seem to have changed even in the last couple of weeks.
Have a great rest of the week!
Wow!! Congratulations to your parents!! That is fantastic! I hope you have a beautiful time.
world affairs are just too depressing these days girl...God help us~!
The practices and campaign strategy of Ron Paul has had very little scrutiny – or none at all – due to the fact, perhaps, that he is not considered a possible winner of the Republican nomination.
The incident with Herman Cain finally convinced us to publish some of the most outrageous shenanigans of the Paul campaign where we expose not only the practice noticed above about heckling Republican opponents, but the added issues of the straw poll contests and the implied threat of a third party candidate that would automatically give Obama the Presidency.
We think that our piece at Robbing America, “Ron Paul For Freedom . . . . With Exemptions”, lays down and questions the Ron Paul campaign shenanigans with validity.
Post a Comment