You clearly aggreed with a number of wars Paul wouldn't engage in.
You're misstating his position, he isn't solely opposed to nationbuilding, he advocates a complete withdrawl of US troops from the region, and presumably all foreign basing.
Regarding the middle east, we withdraw from Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, clearly no significant sea or air presence. We aren't nationbuilding in those places, we're not looking for ancient hatreds, we're protecting our supply of oil. A concern Paul would let the markets and producers solve, there being no such thing as hatred/religion based terror. Once we're gone, the Iranians and wahabbis will be fine. They're rational, after all, and deterred by our nuclear arsenal, which is why a nuclear Iran isn't a threat.
Personally, I think the power vacumn will be filled, perhaps even by the Soviet bear and not to our advantage.
I'm curious, though it's not a reason to keep troops in Iraq, would you agree with Paul's analogy that there was no slaughter in Southeast Asia as some predicted after our withdrawl?
I absolutely agree there was a slaughter in SE Asia after we left. My problem with the War in Vietnam is it should have been over in six months and not dragged on. IMHO, had we invaded North Vietnam it would have been and there would have been far less regional disruption and slaughter.
I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, just most things.
I have to leave but I'll check any replies this evening.