Ok. So I think this section of the forums have established that Ron Paul is an interesting politician who has certainly made an impact on the Internet community, even if they continue to not show him in the polls (there may be a conspiracy theory there, who knows)
I have been reading and writing a lot on Ethics and accountability of late. While discussing that with through various post grad channels, we got to talking of Ron Paul’s Foreign policy and exactly what he means and is committed to when he talks of simply withdrawing all international troops from the world and bringing them home.
I am not here to agree or disagree with this policy, but I would like to talk about the consequences of withdrawing troops, and what America can be held morally accountable for after they leave.
In the ME it’s a fairly clean-cut issue. They made a huge mess over there, have been doing so for many many years, and this time if they simply leave, they are sentencing many people to death by the war lords who will launch massive territorial disputes. Yes, what they are doing now is wrong, going in and simply killing people and trying to fight guerrilla tactics is another terrible situation. They way out of that problem are in no way clear, with no simple answer, so that will always be complicated.
But.
What about other cases such as Georgia, or even Taiwan? If America leaves Taiwan, the chances of china not taking them over within months is about zero. The issue here is that people make deals with countries, not administrations. If one president said they would help them, then that country will rely on the president’s country to help them even if that man is not re elected. If, under Ron Paul’s new foreign policy America leaves Taiwan, and china takes over, can the accountability be laid on Ron pauls government? By leaving, has he sentenced the entire population to fall under the dictatorship of China? Is that enough for accountability?
The same can be said with Georgia. America have been over there training their troops and helping them reinforce their northern border for quite a while now. (Kinda funny that now this is where they want to put the new fancy "anti missile" platforms) If Ron Paul's policy was passed, then how would their non-interference policy work in such a case?
I’m not sure if you can hold America accountable for things that happen after they leave, unless they were the ones who started the problem, which is why its helpful to separate the ME issues from things like Taiwan etc. I also think its interesting that he wants to get rid of the UN.
Anyway, what do you think? Where does accountability lie?
