I am no Ron Paul fan, in fact I have barely read, and never listened, to the man. However, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, in fact I would appreciate it if you would give me a synopsis of his Foreign policy, that his foreign policy adheres pretty much the constitution. I believe it says in the constitution we should not become involved in foreign wars. Not to say we shouldn't have beat the crap out of Afghanistan, I agree with that one, I supported Bush on Iraq, but was never sure if that was the right thing to do, or if we even had the moral authority to go in there. I know, he was working on Nukes, but we could have stopped that by simply bombing the crap out of Iraq now and then.
What I am trying to say is: If a person is against fighting except on American soil and leaving other countries to the sovereignty, as long as their plans don't include hurting us, then he is not a "kook, but a constitutionalists.
Like I said, I need to listen and read Paul much more than I already have, but if you have any input to give me on his foreign policy, I mean facts not broad statements about kookery, I would truly appreciate it.
If you Google Ron Paul, you can find his own words about foreign policy. I'd rather you read it from him and not my interpretation.
In my opinion, though, his non-interventionalist policies just won't work in today's world and, in fact, could be quite dangerous for us. I'd rather engage the enemy on their soil and prevent wars from happening on ours if we can.
If it helps, here's a pretty good overview of Ron Paul's positions on a variety of issues.