Tuesday, October 25, 2011

On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul, and Missionaries

Before starting this post I want to let everyone know that my entire family will be getting together to celebrate my parents 50th wedding anniversary so from tomorrow through Sunday I will be taking a break from blogging.  Hopefully next week my blogging will return back to normal, including Eagle Freedom Links and a rule 5 post returning next Saturday and Sunday.

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.






8 comments:

Trestin said...

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.

John Carey said...

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.

Liberty said...

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)

Teresa said...

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!

Leticia said...

Wow!! Congratulations to your parents!! That is fantastic! I hope you have a beautiful time.

WomanHonorThyself said...

world affairs are just too depressing these days girl...God help us~!

John Galt said...

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.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

First, may I offer my congratulations and blessings to your parents on their 50th wedding anniversary. My parents made it to their 53rd before their deaths.

Secondly, you are 100% right on in your post.

If World Net Daily is correct, the uprising in Egypt and other Mideast countries would never have occurred if it wasn't for Obama.

According to a WND posting several months ago, an Israeli security agent reported to WND that back in late 2009-early 2010, Obama sent members of the U.S. State Department to meet with members of the Muslim Brotherhood at the American Embassy in Cairo to plan the overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak, as well as the overthrow of other Middle Eastern rulers. The purpose being to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power and to place Israel in a "no win" situation to force Israel to bow to Obama's whims of giving up land Israel had won in the Six-Day War, and to give up their claims to Jerusalem.

So if WND and the Israeli agent were telling the truth, none of those uprisings across the Middle East were spontaneous or for the right to establish democracies, which would mean that we were lied to by Obama (nothing new there).

Missionaries have done more with sugar to bring about civilized societies then our government has with military force.