[Oberon]

Baloney. You can't protect this country from terrorists by simply securing the borders.

You don't think that helps?

And you can't protect America's interests here and around the world by withdrawing our troops from every country on the planet (including Japan, Korea, etc.) and unilaterally declaring that you won't even honor defensive treaties with our allies (like Britain).

Did Paul say he would do that?

In the long run it's debatable whether it's worthwhile to put your troops in friendly countries (like South Korea and Japan) rather than staying on good terms with them and having them provide for their own security. Grown-up countries should defend themselves; it's one of the legitimate functions of a sovereign government, and it's reasonable for Japan and Korea to shoulder their share of the load.

Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He favors diplomacy, trade, and defense; he just doesn't favor the US being the world's self-appointed policeman. A lot of patriotic Americans share his point of view.

[kabar]

Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He favors diplomacy, trade, and defense; he just doesn't favor the US being the world's self-appointed policeman. A lot of patriotic Americans share his point of view.

So is it Ron Paul's position that we should close down all of our military bases around the world? Should we get out of NATO? Should we abrogate mutual defense treaties with Japan and South Korea?

[TexasAg1996]

You don't think that helps?

Of course it helps. But that's the extent of Ron Paul's plan to combat terrorism. That, plus withdrawing our troops to help radical Muslims feel better about us.

Did Paul say he would do that?

Yes, he did. He's said he wants to withdraw troops from Japan and Korea, and he's mentioned withdrawing troops from Europe. And he said in an interview last month that defensive treaties with countries like Britain were not constitutional. Gotta love the way he'd treat our allies.