Comments on: Less is More? http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/ Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:29:47 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Economists » Blog Archive » Less is More? http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/comment-page-1/#comment-505889 Economists » Blog Archive » Less is More? Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:10:49 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/#comment-505889 [...] Less is More?Across the Aisle - Washington,DC,USAMeanwhile, our persistent nation-building troubles are the subject ofdozens of books and articles, including Christopher Coyne’sforthcoming After War: The … [...] [...] Less is More?Across the Aisle – Washington,DC,USAMeanwhile, our persistent nation-building troubles are the subject ofdozens of books and articles, including Christopher Coyne’sforthcoming After War: The … [...]

]]> By: Sensible Foreign Policies — and One that Just Doesn’t Make Sense | freedomactivists.net http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/comment-page-1/#comment-447734 Sensible Foreign Policies — and One that Just Doesn’t Make Sense | freedomactivists.net Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:54:11 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/#comment-447734 [...] Over at the Partnership for a Secure America, I highlight three recent articles — by Justine Rosenthal, Barry Posen and Richard Betts, respectively — that advance the sensible proposition that the best way to restore balance to our foreign policy is to change the ends, not the means. [...] [...] Over at the Partnership for a Secure America, I highlight three recent articles — by Justine Rosenthal, Barry Posen and Richard Betts, respectively — that advance the sensible proposition that the best way to restore balance to our foreign policy is to change the ends, not the means. [...]

]]> By: Matthew Rojansky http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/comment-page-1/#comment-440628 Matthew Rojansky Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:21:57 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/#comment-440628 Rosenthal was not the only one making that point in the latest issue of the National Interest. In typically straightforward but visionary fashion, Lee Hamilton gets the tone just right in his piece, when he advises America's foreign policy leaders: "We should be idealists without illusions and pragmatists with a vision." The full piece is at: http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15992 Rosenthal was not the only one making that point in the latest issue of the National Interest. In typically straightforward but visionary fashion, Lee Hamilton gets the tone just right in his piece, when he advises America’s foreign policy leaders: “We should be idealists without illusions and pragmatists with a vision.” The full piece is at: http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15992

]]> By: Tannim http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/comment-page-1/#comment-440548 Tannim Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:35:38 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/11/07/less-is-more/#comment-440548 Of course, that's EXACTLY what the Ron Paul campaign is all about. Depsite the short-circuited retoric, Dr. Paul is not anti-war, just anti-undelcared-war. He believes in war for a just cause, not just because. You hit the nail right on the head in stating that our policy should be about shaping rather than controlling international policy. We can't truly control it, and as the Iraq debacle has shown, the more we try the worse we do, so we shouldn't try so much. There was a time when that was the case, even in the Cold War, and the results were positive, even if it took a while. More recently, 9/11 did shape policy in our favor because of sympathy, and the twits and twerps in the White House took that incorrectly as a green light to try to control international policy, and here we are. Enter Dr. Paul, stage right (no pun intended). He believes we need to get back to that shaping rather than controlling, but he also recognizes that we should nto be the only one, that international realtions are completely a game of give and take, and that our system of representative democracy or republican govenrment will not be best for everyone. After all, there are a lot more parliamentary systems in place that republican ones around the world right now, and there are more oligarchies and dictatorships as well. The Bush Administraton and the other GOP and DP candidates don't seem to understand that when it comes to international politics, the American size doesn't fit all, and no amount of forcing will make it happen, either. Dr. Paul knows this and wants America to step back and other nations to step up. We can influence international policy much more by persuasion and dialogue and leading by example than by the barrel of a gun, and that's the lesson the current regime and the other candidates just don't seem to understand. The people GET that, and that's why they are supporting Dr. Paul, Old Media reports to the contrary. Of course, that’s EXACTLY what the Ron Paul campaign is all about. Depsite the short-circuited retoric, Dr. Paul is not anti-war, just anti-undelcared-war. He believes in war for a just cause, not just because.

You hit the nail right on the head in stating that our policy should be about shaping rather than controlling international policy. We can’t truly control it, and as the Iraq debacle has shown, the more we try the worse we do, so we shouldn’t try so much. There was a time when that was the case, even in the Cold War, and the results were positive, even if it took a while.

More recently, 9/11 did shape policy in our favor because of sympathy, and the twits and twerps in the White House took that incorrectly as a green light to try to control international policy, and here we are.

Enter Dr. Paul, stage right (no pun intended). He believes we need to get back to that shaping rather than controlling, but he also recognizes that we should nto be the only one, that international realtions are completely a game of give and take, and that our system of representative democracy or republican govenrment will not be best for everyone. After all, there are a lot more parliamentary systems in place that republican ones around the world right now, and there are more oligarchies and dictatorships as well. The Bush Administraton and the other GOP and DP candidates don’t seem to understand that when it comes to international politics, the American size doesn’t fit all, and no amount of forcing will make it happen, either. Dr. Paul knows this and wants America to step back and other nations to step up. We can influence international policy much more by persuasion and dialogue and leading by example than by the barrel of a gun, and that’s the lesson the current regime and the other candidates just don’t seem to understand. The people GET that, and that’s why they are supporting Dr. Paul, Old Media reports to the contrary.

]]>