[vbmoneyspender]

So then Paul would forego missile defense because it is our treaty obligations with respect to countries such as Great Britain, Denmark, Poland, Japan, etc. which are enabling us to house the foreign bases we need in order to implement missile defense

[dread78645]

So then Paul would forego missile defense because it is our treaty obligations with respect to countries such as Great Britain, Denmark, Poland, Japan, etc. which are enabling us to house the foreign bases we need in order to implement missile defense

Nope.

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution give Congress the power "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" --that includes missiles.

Rep. Paul has stated that there is a "Federal duty to provide missile defense" (RLC Position Statement) and he voted to deploy Ron Reagan's Space defense initiative (HR 4).
Clearly Ron Paul believes the US should have strategic and AB missiles.

NATO is not needed to provide basing for missile sites.
Missile sites can be (and have been) negotiated to under separate treaties (see Poland, Czech Republic & Israel). In fact, by attempting to have bases in every one of the European NATO countries, NATO is working against US policy ...