Ron Paul’s thesis is that if we quit meddling into the internal affairs of other nations, the terrorists would no longer have reason to attack us. Does that mean Ron Paul would ignore imminent attacks? No. Taking out al queda and the Taliban who provided them sanctuary is one thing; nation building and trying to install democracy in the mideast is entirely something else. As a conservative, I prefer the most minimalist foreign intervention required to protect out interests.
Ah, the old "root causes" logic so beloved of left-wing social theory.
Do you honestly believe that terrorism is grounded in reason?
Does that mean Ron Paul would ignore imminent attacks? No.
That's your claim on Paul's behalf. The reality is that Paul has opposed all measures to enhance the intelligence-gathering necessary to anticipate such imminent attacks.
Taking out al queda and the Taliban who provided them sanctuary is one thing; nation building and trying to install democracy in the mideast is entirely something else.
You speak as if these were discrete, compartmentalized concerns. They are not.
Remove the Taliban. Go home and leave a vacuum of power in Afghanistan. Wait for the next attack. No thanks.
As a conservative, I prefer the most minimalist foreign intervention required to protect out interests.
Sometimes we have to admit that the least intervention required is much more intervention than we would prefer.
That is an important distinction.