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.
You might try reading up on what prompted those military actions. In most all cases, they were in a direct response to hostile actions either against our Nation or its citizens. There are, of course, some when our Nation was expanding (nation building as it were). Thing is, we're no longer nation building and we're supposed to be a Republic, not an Empire (think Great Britian or even France with their 'colonies' all over the globe). You're argument against Ron Paul simply doesn't wash. He favors protecting our nation but not getting embroiled in foreign lands fighting never ending actions that have nothing to do with our national 'security'.