Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

In regards to foreign policy, how is non-intervention synonymous with a weak national defense?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's not. It's a misconception delivered by the neocon's to instill a degree of influence in the people to continue to support he military industrial complex. Neocons and liberals alike benefit immensely from the military industrial complex and their actions overseas. The dems already act like they don't like foreign wars (until it's a dem that sends them there). If the Republican Party allows its constituents to lose support for interventionism overseas, it could endanger hundreds of billions of dollars worth of contracts our government has with private companies (i.e. Halliburton, Lockheed, Boeing, Blackwater, Harris, L3, etc...).

    To say that a policy such as Ron Paul's -- of non-interventionism -- is a threat to our national security, is merely fear-mongering. In fact, it can be considered domestic terrorism by our government's own definition:

    18 USC 2331(5)(i) defines the following as domestic terrorism; (i) "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." http://vlex.com/vid/sec-definitions-19190088

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    In George Washington's own words: "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 defence 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." ~George Washington There isn't any good argument, because a non-intervention foreign policy isn't Ron Paul's idea. It's the idea of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine. Read what they wrote, then read what Ron Paul, it's the same thing. These idiots who say, "well gee, if Ron Paul said it then, I'm not even gonna bother discussing it" don't know anything about America. Seriously read the US Constitution or anything by any of the Founding Fathers, then justify how America isn't supposed to have a non-intervention foreign policy when the Founders said that's the policy America should have? Why? Because George Bush says so, or because Clinton says so? Seriously, wtf is wrong with people. They never question anything. They just regurgitate whatever authority tells them to believe & think. They don't educate themselves about the other side of the issue considering there's a possibility they could be wrong. Yes, I've read Karl Marx works, and no socialism isn't right, but McCain & Obama are both socialists. 2008 election sucks. Obligatory Ron Paul link below: ps. Also, WW2 is justified by Ron Paul & the Constitution, so quit saying we wouldn't have entered WW2. You have zero clue as to what you're talking about.

  • R J
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Yea, one of the candidates during the republican debates stated Saddam as just as dangerous as Hitler, not. You would think the $3.7 billion* that the lobbyists donated to our great House and Senate members in 2009 ($3.2 billion in 2008*) might have something to do with it.

    But no, the Founders went out of their way to make sure we didn't intervene and hey we were tops then. So if anything it is the opposite, except for ......

    Source(s): *opensecrets.org
  • 1 decade ago

    It's not at all. It's just that Republicans find strong national defense synonymous with ultra interventionism.

    Source(s): Libertarian Democrat.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Actually, trying to sustain hundreds of bases on foreign soil is a big part of what makes us weak.

    It also ensures that we will never have a shortage of willing enemy combatants.

    So it's the opposite.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's not. The neoconservatives want you to think that, though.

    Source(s): Non-interventionist Libertarian.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    bush and his cronies wont profit by the death of young brave Americans.

  • 1 decade ago

    Its not.

  • 1 decade ago

    its not!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.