Neil Cavuto interview with Ron Paul re Pakistan

[galtgulch]

Ron Paul points out that "we" gave 8 billion of your tax dollars to prop up Mushariff who had taken over an elected government and became the dictator of Pakistan.

Listen to reason and wonder whether any other candidate would even think of the Ron Paul perspective on foreign policy.

Something tells me that this must be what George Washington meant by "no entangling alliances."

Here is a link to the interview. You have to click on "interview" on the front page this brings you to. (under related column)

http://tinyurl.com/37alaa

galt

[Selene]

Ron Paul points out that "we" gave 8 billion of your tax dollars to prop up Mushariff who had taken over an elected government and became the dictator of Pakistan.

Listen to reason and wonder whether any other candidate would even think of the Ron Paul perspective on foreign policy.

Something tells me that this must be what George Washington meant by "no entangling alliances."

Here is a link to the interview. You have to click on "interview" on the front page this brings you to. (under related column)

http://tinyurl.com/37alaa

galt

I believe he did not use the phrase "...no entangling alliances...", Jefferson is attributed a similar phrase in his 1801 first innaugural address. However, it was the clear warning of Washington:

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

Continuing:

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

Embellishing his argument he warns:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."

Then he concludes that:

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."

A few paragraphs down he gets close to the phrase when he extols us that:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign "

This was a great man. He lead by example.

The link to the entire text is: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Adam