Correction: His foreign policy is closer to George Bush as candidate in 2000, when he rejected Clintonian "nation building." Now, Bush is attempting Clintonian "nation building" in Iraq. Hillary supports him - no surprise, since "nation building" is a Democrat/Clintonian concept - while Paul opposes. Paul is closer to the old Bush/old Republican position. He's also closer to the old Republican position on spending and government(he wants less of both; Bush has given us more of both).
The dems only supported the war because it was political suicide not to at the time. Their true colors have been displayed since about 6 months into the campaign.
Clintonian nation building is when you go to Yugoslavia to take sides and “peacekeep” when neither side was our enemy. Saddam Hussein was our enemy. He had his fingerprints all over 911 and the first World trade center bombing. He was harboring and abetting terrorists of all stripes. And he was not abiding by the ceasefire agreement we had with him.
9-11 opened alot of peoples eyes about the need to crush the islamo scumbags, no matter where they are. Not Paul’s though. It’s our fault for having military bases on sacred islamic soil, in his twisted little mind.
9/11 changed EVERYTHING... except you.
LLS
We engaged in nation building in Japan and Germany after WW2. I suppose Ron Paul would have been against that as well.
The problem with Somalia or Yugo style nation building (Clinton style) is that it's done in an extremely half-a$$ed manner with far more concern about focus groups and "world opinion" than we're already suffering. (You think it's bad NOW...) The motivation is moral preening, making us appear to be compassionate in the eyes of the "enlightened" so we'll be called "progressive" and "evolved" at Manhattan or Hollywood dinner parties -- and actual results be damned.
Problem is the public doesn't have the stomach for a drawn-out involvement in a fight where we don't even have a side. This leads to rules of engagement designed to avoid casualties but which also ensure defeat, and -- ironically -- often increase bloodshed on all sides.
There is a totally different set of incentives here:
CLINTON STYLE: We're trying to help people and just be generally be nice (or more importantly APPEAR to be doing good to brown nose European/PC elites), and we'll avoid any real fighting that might actually make a difference for the locals and quickly pull out with egg on our face the moment the first image of a dead GI appears on TV.
BUSH DOCTRINE STYLE: We either defeat Islamist terrorism or we start memorizing the Koran.
Victory in such a war means draining the fever swamp of terrorism -- e.g., democratizing the Middle East. Basically the same as post-WW2 "nation building" but without the "post" part -- it's done on the fly, OJT. This means a learning curve and inevitable mistakes. So quit crying over failures, there are always failures in war, yes, even by the winning side, which sometimes makes even more mistakes than the losers (see Civil War). You don't have the luxury of just taking your ball and going home to sob in the corner of your room while Mom bakes you some cookies, because she'll be dead because the bully followed you home and got to her first on his way to you.
Ron Paul is just another neo-isolationist Democrat ostrich whose foreign policy ideas hang entirely on the assumption of good will from those hellbent on killing us.
Correction: His foreign policy is closer to George Bush as candidate in 2000, when he rejected Clintonian "nation building." Now, Bush is attempting Clintonian "nation building" in Iraq. Hillary supports him - no surprise, since "nation building" is a Democrat/Clintonian concept - while Paul opposes. Paul is closer to the old Bush/old Republican position.
No it doesn't come from the old Bush / Republican position.
It is directly from the fourth section of the Platform of the Libertarian Party
IV. Foreign Affairs American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.This Report for the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service report RL30172, hosted on the US Air Force, Air University server, documents hundreds of interventions without Declarations of War by our US military since the founding of our nation.The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004
In several instances some of our Founding Fathers that have been cited by some as the source of anti-interventionist policy were the Commanders-in-Chief that directed these military interventions.
I believe that makes Congressman Ron Paul either an ignorant person, a mendacious person, or a foolish person. I don't even understand his motives. I do know that he is not being truthful, especially because his home state was a participant in perhaps one of the most famous incursion of the 20th century, the Punitive Expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa.
What?
Clinton nation building = his countless “humanitarian” missions (while simultaneously gutting the military).
GWB nation building is in direct response to war. History has proven you have to nation build after war.