As a Ron Paul supporter, one concern I occasionally hear from potential voters is that they “like Ron Paul’s stances, except on foreign policy”. It’s a concern that is understandable and also one that I personally held until recently.
Ron Paul usually scores high marks with both republican and independent voters on taxes and spending. For decades, Dr. Paul has warned the American people of the dangers of the Federal Reserve system and of periodic government intervention in the economy. His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution while in elected office is also something to be praised.
In fact, Dr. Paul has been praised by many of his colleagues who are currently running for President. Mitt Romney punted a question regarding the U.S. Constitution to Paul during a New Hampshire debate, bestowing the title of ‘Constitutionalist’ upon Dr. Paul. Newt Gingrich frequently compliments Paul on his fight against the Federal Reserve. Gingrich even went so far as to mention Paul’s Fed stance during his South Carolina victory speech. Ron Paul’s economic platform has slowly entered the mainstream of the GOP political discourse, and has finally broken through with great reception from conservative voters.
Without Ron Paul, the gold standard, the federal reserve, the dangers of a fiat currency, and a nation continually saddled with debt would have gone by un-raised. At least until it was too late.
What drives a big chunk of conservatives up a wall is the mention of Ron Paul’s foreign policy…
Many syndicated ‘conservative’ pundits label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘isolationist’. With this context in mind, it’s easy to see why many establishment republican voters would turn their backs on Dr. Paul. The position of bringing the troops home along with talking heads like Hannity and Beck, jumping and screaming about Paul’s apparent ‘isolationism’ would strongly encourage many conservatives to not take a second look at Ron Paul and dismiss him entirely.
First and foremost, Ron Paul is many things. However an isolationist, isn’t one of them. An excellent example of an isolationist country would be North Korea. The ironically named ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ has closed itself off from the rest of the world. There is no trade. There is no diplomacy. There is no immigration or emigration. Being isolated from the rest of the world is the antithesis of what Ron Paul believes, and the notion that he is anything close to an ‘isolationist’ should be expelled from any informed voter’s mind.
Non-interventionism, the foreign policy of Ron Paul, put’s America’s needs and concerns first, instead of the needs of other nations. It is important to know that at present the United States has over 900 military installations in over 130 foreign countries.
The overreach and spreading thin of our troops throughout the world leaves our home front vulnerable. One has to look no further than the United States’ own borders, which are seriously undermanned and without any protection whatsoever for many miles. Another example closer to home is the recent shut down of the Fort Monmouth Facility in Monmouth County. The federal government shut down the base late last year as a means of cost savings.
The simple fact that we’re closing bases in New Jersey to open new bases abroad does not make me feel safer as a United States Citizen.
The United States military currently has:
- 52,440 military personnel in Germany.
- 35,688 military personnel in Japan
- 28,500 military personnel in Korea
- 9,015 military personnel in the United Kingdom
- 9,660 military personnel in Italy
America’s fighting men and women should only be sent overseas when our nation is at war. Our nation should only be at war when the Congress, representing the American people, passes a Declaration of War, as mandated by our Constitution. These used to be conservative principles that our nation held dear up until recently in our history. Since our founding and up to 1945 we declared wars, won them, and the troops have come home. This has been due to our government picking its battles carefully, and only entering conflicts with clear, concise objectives, and naturally, voting on the war in the congress.
As President, Ron Paul has made it clear that he would not hesitate to go to war if necessary, but only as a last resort. The war would obviously have to be legitimized by a vote in the congress, as stated in the constitution.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is approved by the most important pundits of all, the troops. Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty military personnel than all the rest of the candidates, including President Obama, combined.
If you listen to the troops (particularly those who support Ron Paul), they’ll tell you that the United States Military is creating enemies faster than they can kill them overseas. The troops would tell you, that bringing them home and building our defense here would be more profitable than sending our money and young men and women to the sands of some foreign land.
Military veterans like Adam Kokesh and active duty Cpl Jesse Thorsen have been speaking out about the dangerous foreign policy that the U.S. Government currently engages in, and they offer Ron Paul’s foreign policy as a clear alternative to the lunacy that exists today.
The extreme fiscal expense that the United States incurs by stationing troops around the world will leave our treasury bare and we’ll have nothing to show for it. It is a fiscally conservative position, as well as a constitutional position to support a strong national defense and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the position Paul holds. We can either elect to withdraw from our international installations now, or we’ll be forced to leave in a few years when our government can no longer afford anything and we’ve run out of creditors.
I can’t imagine how someone who considers themselves to be a fiscal conservative can possibly support the fiscally liberal position of excessive spending to subsidize other nations’ defense. Not only do the troops like Ron Paul, but defense employees from companies like Lockheed Martin contribute to Ron Paul as well because they know Dr. Paul would build up our national defense, not engage in careless militarism abroad. Under Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America, we’d still spend four times more than China on Defense and reduce all other budgetary obligations to 2006 levels. The total savings from rethinking our defense and other careful cuts would result in $1 Trillion of savings in the first year. This would effectively save social security and medicare, without touching promised benefits to seniors or the less privileged. Sounds pretty fiscally conservative to me.
Want to support the troops? Support Ron Paul.
Matt Rooney
Brian McGovern
Ed Sheppard
Matt DeLuca
Irwin M. Fletcher
James Beattie
Joshua Einstein
Michael Ward
hahaha, if this was an attempt to rebut the piece written by Mr. Einstein (http://savejersey.com/2012/01/isolationism-ron-paul-not-acceptable/), try again. When someone running for President gets their history so extremely wrong and argues that the US occupation of Afghanistan caused the Taliban to ally with Al Qaida and thus attack us on 911 they deserve only scorn.
You posit that “Since our founding and up to 1945 we declared wars, won them, and the troops have come home”. What about the Spanish-American War in which we took Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and I believe Guam. How about the Mexican-American War in which we physically expanded instead of retreat? Or the Barbary Wars? In which there was authorization for the use of force but not Declaration of War. There are many more example and a simple wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars) proves the notion that we always declared war until WW2 or that the troops came home right away false.
Really SaveJersey? Support Ron Paul or not, but as conservatives history and facts should matter to us not just mere feelings. I’m disappointed, this piece was disgraceful.
I can’t stand Ron Paul. I’ve never hidden that fact. But Save Jersey is New Jersey’s #1 forum for a variety of right-of-center opinions (conservative, libertarian, “RINO” and all points in between).
Mike doesn’t speak for the site. I don’t speak for Mike. He’s still a smart guy and we’re glad to have him contributing to the discussion.
Adi Gordon,
The piece completely went over your head. You clearly lack any substantive understanding of a strict construction of the constitution and the rule of law. This piece was disgraceful? You’re chickenhawking is disgraceful. There are so many members of our party, so willing to send the children of the middle and lower socioeconomic classes to die in undeclared wars, with constantly changing missions, and with an unclear endgame in mind. You advance a philosophy of pre-emptive wars based on bad intelligence, and a flawed ideology that we can build nations. You seem to believe that we ought to be spreading our Democracy and our ideals by force. We indefinitely detain citizens, authorize the asassination of American citizens abroad, warrantlessly wiretap American citizens, hold prisoners of war indefinitely and without trial in Guantanamo bay; so is it no wonder that these countries we invade do not want the sort of “Democracy” we are trying to export?
You know, I find these sorts of arguments with people of your ilk rather pointless. I find them pointless because regardless of the ideological seperations between us, the simple fact of the matter, and I believe the entire point of the writers article is, that we SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD THESE WARS! The cost in both US dollars and in US lives is too great. They are predicated upon a false sense that little men in caves have the ability to reach out and touch every man, woman, and child in every suburb in America. Should we continue to indebt our grandchildren to China in order to blow up, and then rebuild bridges, schools, and roads in Afghanistan? Whilst roads, bridges, and schools in America suffer for lack of funding.
This is an ECONOMIC issue. We cannot afford these wars, and in the long run, they do little to nothing to ensure our national security interests. We cannot continue to borrow money for “guns and butter,” and eventually the entire monetary system will come to a halt, and then NO ONE gets benefits. Your logic is so completely flawed, and for you to attack the principles upon which the writer advances his ideas, simply because he supports a candidate with assaults your Neo-conservative sensibilities is shameful. You ought to do more research on your history, and also pull out a dictionary and learn the difference between isolatonism and non-interventionism. As the founders said, “Trade with all nations, alliances with non.”
If you can propose a way to fund these foreign wars of aggression for 10+ years, then by all means, speak up and advance a solution, rather then criticizing (rather rudely) those who are actually trying to solve our problems and our economic woes.
Mr. Rooney I understand and applaud your desire to create a conservative big tent but I admonish you to consider that every group must have boundaries and or conceptual borders. This idea is what contributed to Buckley chasing out both the old order anti-Catholic/anti-Semitic conservatives and Ayn Rand of mainstream political conservativism. It was not until recently that Paul fancied himself as the standard bearer of conservativism and its important to note that not all libertarianism is right of center but all conservativism is.
Mr. Silva you mix so many issues but before answering the malformed attempt at rebuttal I want to ask you several questions. When did I say I was for american adventurism? Did you read Mr. Einstein’s piece posted (I believe) a few days ago? Did Ron Paul not actually say the Taliban were allied to Al Qaida because of foreign occupation? And that they wouldn’t attack us if we weren’t “there”? Do you dispute the fact that there were wars before Korea that were undeclared wars? Do you think the American military troops in the Philippines did not exist? These last two questions were the substantive point that author of this piece were positing and which I was addressing. Nothing else, obviously we need to save money, obviously less conflict is preferable to more conflict. But how jejune would you have the nation be? Talk about straw men and false choices. Do you think, like Defeatocrats, that our enemies just stop plotting against us because we give them what they want? Whether terrorists in Iraqi and Afghanistan, or China in the pacific, these groups have goals and agenda that are not reflexively related to our actions. The world is not America-centric and no retreat from it will make it so but it will hurt out interests, economy, and safety.
Obviously everything costs money and equally obvious is that we shouldn’t be in Europe. Those issues of consensus aside, considering entitlement spending far outweighs our military commitments why don’t we address that first? Or crazy conservative idea, why don’t we put in pro-growth policies and shrink the federal gov, rather than shrink the navy to a smaller since than 1917. Crazy I know to believe in freedom at home and strength abroad, but the two are inseparable. Boom.
Yawn. The continuous libertarian cry against your interventionist statements feels cliche, but apparently you haven’t heard it yet: strength abroad is contrary to American philosophy at its core. Where is there liberty to be found in using force overseas? You cannot possibly claim that it will make us safer. Why? Because there is no evidence that it will. 9/11 occurred, as stated clearly and definitively by the perpetrators, BECAUSE OF our occupation of Saudi Arabia. Even our own CIA recognizes terrorist activity against the US as blowback from our foreign military activity and use of force overseas. Our current conflict with Iran? Foreign occupation.
And I don’t even breach of the heavy economic toll this entire business has taken, plunging us into deficit after budget number had finally reached the black.
This is an excellent, well written piece and I will certainly use it to explain Ron Paul’s stance on many of the issues –especially his foreign policy, which many more should follow so that we spend more time serving our country and less time supporting War Profiteers.
To respond to Adi briefly, this was actually not a rebuke on the piece that Mr. Einstein wrote. The timing of the two were completely coincidental.
But Ryan is absolutely right when he says that it’s an economic issue. Great nations collapse due to the fact that they overextending themselves militaristically. Eventually the money’s going to run out, and what we’re doing around the world only insights hatred and creates more of the enemy that we’re trying to eradicate.
Our military will never be able to kill every terrorist. The war on terror will not end unless we come home. This is due to the fact that ‘terrorism’ and ‘radical jihadism’ are ideas, not nations. There will always be a finite number of soldiers that an army can send into battle. Ideas are infinite. As long as we’re inciting hatred and killing innocents in the middle east, we’ll have nothing but perpetual war.
The SuperPac backing Paul released an excellent video putting the situation in perspective. What if another nation came here and occupied us? I highly recommend watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
The problem Mike, is that most Americans lack the ability to see things through the eyes of the people whom we subjugate. We need to put on other “lenses,” walk a mile in that persons shoes, if you will. I often times try to convey to people, that every bomb that we drop, every stray bullet that we fire, which hits an innocent civilian, radiates outward to numerous family members in that particular country. We actually CODIFY the cause of the terrorist by occupying countries like Iraq, and killing civilians (aka, collateral damage). These people who are killed in the crossfire indiscriminately have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins, all of whom do not care for our politics. These people do not care that we’ve given them “freedom,” and “liberated” them, that does not bring back their dead family member. Yet, it is easy for armchair warriors, and politicians in Washington to sit back in the comfort and safety of their Victorian home, and say things such as “That is the price of freedom.”
What those like Mr.Adi Gordon, and the rest of the neo-cons must understand is, that on top of unifying ‘terrorist’ causes, the rule of law prohibits us from invading SOVEREIGN NATIONS, who have done nothing to threaten our national security. Iraq, is an absolutely indefensible war, there can be no case made that invading that country did anything to make the United States safer, or the middle east more stable. If anything, it has created the potential for a huge destabilization in the region, and cost the American taxpayers countless young lives, billions of dollars, and codified the cause of the extremist.
Terrorism, is a TACTIC of war, a well known one. You cannot wage war on a tactic, it is no different than waging a war on “Flanking,” or some other such war tactic. There will always be a small minority of people in any religion, group, etc, who are radicalized and willing to do extreme things. We’ve seen such groups at home in our own country, commit such acts over abortion. What neo-cons fail to realize, is that Ron Paul is not “blaming” America for anything, he is simply advancing the position, that we have no hope of ending the violence if we fail to UNDERSTAND THE REASONS that these people attack us. If we are unwilling to listen to our own CIA on the principle of “blowback,” we are destined to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. Invading sovereign nations in the middle east, occupying their holy land, killing civilians, and helping extremist groups recruiting efforts for new recruits more then they could ever hope to recruit on their own. Iraq currently has 2 million orphans, children without a home, who do you think would be most willing to take these young impressionable children under their wing?
Many neo-cons say that we want to “blame America for everything.” To this I say no, we do not, but we are realistic enough to understand that sometimes America does make mistakes. So while we do not blame America all the time, we dont subscribe to the neo-cons idea of “Blame America Never!”
http://therypublican.blogspot.com
Our current foreign policy is WELFARE for rich countries that should be paying for their own security rather than at the expense of the US taxpayer.
I want most all our Non-US owned bases closed. Why are we still in Germany,Korea, Japan? its insane! They can afford to pay for their own protection and its about time they started.
You want to ramp up our Navy/submarine patrols around the world – fine…I can live with that. Makes sense to me to have teh capability to deliver a nuke within 10 min to anywhere in the world.
but the rest of it….pure militarism/nationbuilding – which we have NO Business doing.
and as far as the middle east goes – These people have been killing each other for THOUSANDS of years – there is nothing we are gonig to do to stop that. time to leave.
“oooohhhh but Iran is going to nuke usssss!!!” – Baloney! – If Iran ever built a bomb, it would be a bomb ala 1945 – not a suitcase weapon. and if they ever did build a bomb – Israel would carpet bomb the entire country – THE USA does need to be involved. Let Israel (a rich country) start paying for their own protection.
Remember folks – Most of the countries in the ME used to be our friends 60 yrs ago. What changed. Thier religion or our foreign policy (meddling in thier internal affairs.
Ron Paul is right.
Mr.Ward,
Please contact me at my email Rypublicanblog@gmail.com, I’d like to discuss some collaboration on an article.
Great job, Mike. Ron Paul’s policy is peace through strength, not borrowing money from China to meddle in foreign countries around the world. The policy of Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum is to bankrupt the United States in order to bomb the rest of the world into submission. The hubris of these men is staggering. Humility goes a long way, and it’s about time the US woke up and reversed direction voluntarily before it gets humiliated involuntarily.
I was going to say that while I agree on the points with Mr. or Ms. Gordon (is Adi a man’s or woman’s first name?)I do not agree with the tone. We can be civil and still disagree. On an interesting note, this is the first time I have seen this genre of discussion outside of the attacks by Democrats, including our current Commander in Chief, on Republicans. That said, I would like to ask you, Mr. Ward if you agree with Mr. Silva on the root cause of Islamic terrorism being our occupation(s)? Do not these groups, like other sometimes traditional actors, have writings and recorded statements going back decades and decades which outline their policy? In your mind, was that just posturing?
Romney 2012
If this were Facebook I would ‘like’ this comment.
I like the subtlety of it.
Joshua, I would say that 90% of the reasoning behind what drives terrorists to kill is our involvement in their region. When you look at the death tolls in Iraq, it’s easy to see why. While casualties of american troops and insurgents lie somewhere in the tens of thousands, casualties for innocent civilians is around 500,000. Not to mention the billions of dollars in damages that Iraqis have incurred on their homes and businesses thanks to our bombs.
Another reason why they could hate us is the sanctions we impose. Sanctions do nothing but harm the innocent people that have nothing to do with the conflict. The rich leaders of countries don’t care if their supply of, oh I don’t know, corn gets cut off. They won’t starve, but the poor people who had nothing to do with the conflict will. Sanctions most always lead to war, so we should be cautious when we impose them.
The religious aspect of terrorism, the last 10%, is an element to legitimize the attacks being perpetuated against the United States. Radical Islam is a rallying cry to defeat the west, but there would be no need to wage a holy war if we never set foot in the sands of their land. Also, many a times the doctrines that are referred to are misquoted and misconstrued. The common example being the “Wipe Israel off the face of the Earth” fallacy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html
Iran supports the removal of the Israeli state, and a Palestinian government to be installed, with jews christians and muslims living within the territory.
Is that bad? Yes.
Is it worse than the misconception that they want to nuke Israel? No.
Mr. Ward, are you positing that US forces were in Afghanistan before we were attacked on 911? Or that the US was occupying the Sudan when they gave aid and shelter to Al Qaida?
I understand what reasons you think would motivate terrorists but I think you misunderstand their reasons. For example, regardless of the “wipe Israel” or merely “vanish from the arena of time” debate doesn’t Iranian rhetoric added to its actions since the 1980′s of targeting Jewish sites around the world (think Buenos Aires in the 80′s), bombing Israel through it’s proxy Hezbullah, its massive financial and military support of Hamas (and limited but substantive military training) make it a nation Israel, from its national security perspective, should be concerned about in its attempts to get the nuclear bomb?
Iran is our fault, no one can deny that. We deposed its head of state in the 1950′s (they had a parliamentary government back then) and installed the shah as an autocrat. This autocrat, by the name of Pahlavi, ruled by means of a secret police. All of this lead to the Islamic revolution and to modern day Iran.
Why did the United States overthrow a democratic, peaceful, government? The same reason we always get involved in the middle east, oil. In this case, the British and the United States decided it was a bad thing that Iran was nationalizing its petroleum industry. Had we not been so concerned for our corporations’ profits, we could have had a very strong ally in the Middle East. Guess we blew our shot at that one.
We need to have more open conversations like this. As Republicans, we need to discuss the issues that make us true conservatives. As a Republican site, it’s important to discuss all issues regarding fiscal responsibility and tax cuts, even if we all don’t agree on it.
Are you kidding? Obviously, fiscal responsibility and tax cuts are our number one agenda but equally important is chronology and a knowledge of facts and history. The Paulites (as Mr. Einstein calls them in his piece) on this board have accused people that believe in engagement with the world with being the evil NeoCon. Yet if one even knows anything about the NeoCon movement, the original neocons were skeptical about foreign involvement and against democracy promotion. But history doesn’t matter to Paulites because its easier to debase all of us by using slurs. Moreover, not once has any Paulite answered any question brought up by myself or Mr. Einstein regarding chronology. Conservativism is about fact, not about feelings or cat calls.
PS Rich I agree with you Iran is on us, obviously not all of our decisions and actions have been good or effective and we should never think about taking out a democratically elected government unless it acts illiberally (as in classical liberalism).
Adi, I suggest reading Pat Buchanan’s book “Where The Right Went Wrong”. That discusses the true nature of the origins of the neo-con movement by the Kristols. The ORIGINAL conservative output was a foreign policy that Jefferson spoke of. The fact is, the military is the ultimate authority with how to deal with foreign affairs, and you ignore who they are donating most of the money to? You sir, are ignorant, and you need to understand history and facts. The whole post you sent to me about the neo-con movement is complete false and full of revisionism. Get your facts straight from the quotes that the original neo-cons have said and what they laid out.
hahaha Next your going to say that Pat Buchanan’s rag American Conservative isn’t neo-isolationist (though as a regular reader of this dribble it does end up saying the same thing as the Nation does more often than any other conservative mag I read).
I suggest reading The Neocon Reader, published in 04 from Grove Press, as a compilation of the thoughts Neocons and fellow travelers from Kirkpatrick, to Kristol(s), to Bolton, to Muravchik. But if you don’t have the time for that, and specifically on Irving Kristol, I recommend (sample below): http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/23/was_irving_kristol_a_neoconservative
“Although many in the United States protested, one observer forcefully supported the White House’s decision not to intervene at that moment. “There is good reason — perhaps even right reason — for the administration’s position,” he wrote. “It has to do with our definition of the American national interest in the Gulf. This definition does not imply a general resistance to ‘aggression.’ … And this definition surely never implied a commitment to bring the blessings of democracy to the Arab world. … [No military] alternative is attractive, since each could end up committing us to govern Iraq. And no civilized person in his right mind wants to govern Iraq.”"
That was merely a sample, but they are quoting none other, than yes your right, your guessed it, Irving Kristol. Oiy facts and direct quotes, so annoying I know, right? lol
Joshua, I think that the quotes are really not as important as the actions. The truth of the matter is, the Neo-Cons HAVE expanded the size of government, and advanced an interventionist foreign policy while they held power. So really, you quoting wha they SAY they stood for means absolutely nothing. So Adi Gordon stating that “neocons were skeptical about foreign involvement,” means NOTHING when the Neo-Cons are the ones who gave us the Iraq War, and big government spending.
With regards to Adi’s remarks, I believe that your assertion of name calling is rather hypocritical with throwing around terms such as “Paulites” and “Paulbots.” What other candidates supporters do you have nicknames for? Are there Romnites? Newtians? Santoriums? No, but the labeling is a convenient way for you to try to discredit our message and the movement for liberty. Having impassioned supporters is somehow portrayed as a bad thing, but I would argue it is not so much Paul himself that we support, but rather the MESSAGE which he represents.
The message of small government is something all conservatives should agree on. But the willfull disregard of what people say, Irving Kristol or the rich history of anti-Western statements from Islamic extremists going back to before the 50′s, for example is problematic to say the least. Does it not matter that Islamic radicals had an anti-Wester/ anti-liberty agenda before we steped in their lands? On the neocons What nation did Kristol ever invade? I know of none, yet you say look at his actions. Moreover, if the origional neocons were against foreign interventionism and their second generation is for it, but were raised as conservatives, or were always Republicans when do they stop being the dreaded neocons and become just Republicans with which you disagree?
Lastly, what Neocon administration was ever in office? Was it Bush who yes adopted Iraq invansion, but who continued our detente policies with China, which the neocons were against, a neocon? Are outfits older than the neocon “movement” like the National Review considered neocon even though they are as paleo as you can get?
On Paulbots I agree its disrespectufl, on Paulites as in followrs/supporters of Paul I disagree, as a Romney person would be a Romneyite, just as Reagen followers where Reagenites. For Newts supporters I propose Newtonians.
my apologies I meant Reagan and Reaganites
Bravo Michael Ward, what an astute young man. To capture the true sentiment of those that want a strong Defense here at home, what better way then BRING THEM HOME to protect us? Why continue the occupation of the countries mentioned? The money spent seems to satisfy the military contractors quite nicely though….havent we seen this before? Hasnt thia already been proven? Blackwater Round II? Why not just fess up people? THe government is in cahoots with the military and defense contractors… WAR FOR PROFFITTS, its simple, they dont care about the troops, just ask anyone that returns, do they see waste? Do they think they are PROTECTING US OVER THERE? Some of you fail to see the points that the author makes. Remove the scales from your eyes. The truth shall set you free.
We have never been big on declaring war even though it is the most important constraint preventing the president from becoming an emperor and America from being a empire… Did our willingness to go on other nation’s holy land ensight hatred and give a recruiting tool to terrorist groups which hate us? YES. Did our willingness to kill hundreds of innocents to kill one bad guy ensight hatred toward us? YES. Did 9/11 happen b/c they hate our freedoms? WHAT ARE YOU 12???? Blowback is real. Our CIA writes books on it. Former directors have come out and spoken about our flawed foreign policy, and yet Sean Hannity says it is absurd so it must be. How many ppl will u let be murdered in your name before you understand the most feared enemy to US constitution isn’t in the sands of some far off land but are in Washington and have passed bills such as the NDAA which are leading to the destruction of the republic while ppl bicker over Ron Paul being “dangerous”
wowwww
[...] more here: http://savejersey.com/2012/01/non-interventionism-and-fiscal-conservatism-a-case-for-ron-paul/ Share Rants & [...]
I know I do not fully explain myself for bashing Ron Paul on foreign policy, but that is because I am focused on RP foreign policy measure. I like Ron Paul for being a Constitutionalist, but social liberalism isn’t in the Constitution. We are looking to build a libertarian base in future elections I believe, so this topic is always relevant.
But here is my point. You are a libertarian president, right? You are held accountable naturally, and elections do have consequences of course. The CIA has sensitive information for you that shows that isolationism is dangerous for evidentiary reasons that would shock you. (it is the 21st century, freedom has to be fought for, protected and preserved, and Islamic extremists found ways to enact 9/11 on American soil. Meanwhile, we have the best of nation joining the military that weren’t drafted in a declared war.)
With this confidential information, would you compromise your noninterventionalism creed when you discover it is against our protection to do so? It is the similar reason to think about controlling the border, but not this. After all, those hijackers in 9/11 trained out in the open within Iraq. Chasing them would require one hell of a reason, especially coming from a conservative mindset. Do you allow for compromise when you find out that it isnt a matter of fiscal conservatism, unfortunately. I think Ron Paul even would himself! This is why I like Ron Paul, but he isn’t a perfect revolutionary…