6 thoughts on “Ron Paul & foreign policy”

  1. I broadly agree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy and the sentiments outlined in this video. However what I find notable at the moment is the number of quality campaign messages such as this one that the Ron Paul campaign is able to pump out. They have a well oiled political machine riding into this election contest. I hope it pays off.

  3. Half-truths and misrepresentations. Totally unpersuasive.

    It’s one thing to be circumspect about using military force, and sometimes the US should be more circumspect. It’s another to advocate appeasement and lack faith in your own values.

    America stands for freedom and democracy. It’s enemies do not and, sooner or later, will have to be defeated.

  4. David, if what we are is what we do, rather than what we say we do, or wish we do, then the truth is America does not stand for freedom or democracy, and hasn’t for some time. We are a police state–as is Australia, the UK, and many other first world countries.

    We’re fed up with it though. Ron Paul will be the next president of the United States in 2012. Count on it.

  5. If you believe in freedom and democracy, it’s quite likely those enemies will defeat themselves.

    Freedom and democracy produces wealth and production which can not be matched by totalitarian regimes. It attracts the worlds best and brightest.

    We believe free markets, not government, best to resolve which businesses best serve the people and which businesses do not.

    We do not need the government to stop bad businesses. We need quite the contrary, we need the government to get out of the way, not protect those bad businesses.

    The U.S. subsidies totalitarian regimes. It does so both through foreign aid, and it also does through it’s foreign policy which incites hatred towards the U.S, and as a result, hatred towards democracy and freedom.

    Financial and military intervention in the Middle East is the authoritarian’s best friend. It both assists dictators maintain power, and both abroad and at home it is used as an excuse to violate the liberties of its citizens.

    Whilst I don’t totally agree with Ron Paul’s approach to foreign policy, it’s much closer to what should be happening.

    You can not deny that the U.S. needs to change it’s foreign policy. It’s an economic reality. With current annual revenues in the U.S. at $1.7 trillion, and military expenditure at $1 trillion, and a debt of $15 trillion, military and interest repayments would eat the entire budget. There is no chance of the U.S. balancing its budget without a change in foreign policy.

    The U.S. should make it clear to the world that it will no longer fight wars of aggression. It should also (and this is where I disagree with Paul) place its troops in democratic, friendly nations and make it clear to the world that it will defend democratic free states. It should make it clear that if people overthrow their leaders and institute democratic states which respect the liberties of their citizens, then they will also gain the protection of the U.S. This protection shall be on the condition of them not themselves launching aggressive wars.

    And most importantly, it should stop sending money to dictators. This does nothing to promote freedom, it promotes authoritarianism whilst destroying the economy country who is supposed to lead the free world.

  6. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He will try and spin it that he avoid war, pretty much all the time. But under the constitution, its Congress and only Congress that declares war. Then the President fights the war, against a well-defined enemy, with all the resources of the nation. In the case where enemies are ill-defined, and perhaps ultimate enemies are unknown, the constitution gets around this by the capacity to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.

    So whereas Ron Paul may argue the case for Israel having to look after herself, if directed by Congress to resupply Israel after an attack, put enemies of hers on a hit list for Marque and Reprisal, or even defeat all of the enemy regimes of Israel in one full-scream action, then he would presumably be compelled to do so. But his position is that this is for Congress to decide. He will take the pacifist approach, until such time as the Congress steps up, makes the spending cuts necessary to fund the war, declares the war, and so forth.

    But in the end Israel, Taiwan, and we here in Australia, have to look after ourselves. And while Ron Paul may WISH to repeal legislation regarding the protection of Taiwan, he may WISH to close all 700+ overseas bases, and he may WISH to only defend the borders of the US, its not realistic to suggest that he will be able to take his act that far. If Taiwan is invaded, he will be compelled to shore up Japan.

    The thing is, under Ron Paul, there may be the CAPACITY to shore up an ally when another ally has been taken off the chess-board. Under anyone else , the US can lose almost all its abilities to get anything done at any time. Everyone else has to be seen as financially unviable.

Comments are closed.