[Rob_DSM]

I'm mostly a lurker here, so forgive my ignorance, but why are people on FR critical of Ron Paul? He states that we should completely remove ourselves from the UN. How can a conservative argue with that?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

There are basement dwellers here, as in most forums, who have an interest in keeping the sheeple sleeping comfortably, like a big dumb Gulliver on the beach, as their masters wind string after string around the sleeping giant.

[monkeywrench]

What he said in 39.

[iconoclast]

How can a conservative argue with that?

Well there are conservatives, there are libertarians, there are populist conservatives, there are paleo conservatives.

And then there are the neo conservatives.

[Ruadh]

Here is one argument:
The U.N. is a dangerous organization over which we currently have a veto. If we withdrew, maybe it would become less dangerous, but maybe not. Without our veto it could serve as a vehicle for the rest of the world to unite against the U.S.A.

[BlackElk]

Because Ron Paul generally favors what the Euroweenies favor in foreign policy: a gelded United States that waits to fight wars on our own soil rather than smashing our enemies on their own turf, in their own neighborhoods, among their own families.

The cause of the pantywaist form of isolationism died on 12/7/41 and died again on 9/11/01.

Severing US involvement in the UN is a great idea and ought to be pursued. Unfortunately, Paul apparently would substitute a Switzerland form or foreign policy for American foreign policy. We are not Switzerland. We have self-imposed responsibilities. If the rest of the world does not like that, tooooooo baaaaaaddd!