Replies

When you get right down to it, even here there are more folks than I would like to admit, who think Paul’s thoughts on the military and foreign policy are exactly right.

I'm not really sure what Ron Paul's position on the military is...We all know what the liberal media says about it...We know what the GOP says about it...I don't know that Ron Paul has ever really made it clear...

As I understand it, Paul's position is that of the Constitution...No foreign entanglements but a large and tough enough military to defend ourselves against any and all at any given time...

Is that your take on Paul's position???

Are you kidding me? Code Pink has a stronger National Defense stand than Paul does. Paul has made that abundantly clear in several exchanges from the debates.

Paul believes that Iran has every right to possess nukes. He actually hopes they get one. Paul hates Israel to the degree where he actually said that if he had been President in World War 2, he would have not have tried to stop the Holocaust.

Is this the kind candidate for “President” You want to support? I don't think that even Obama is that radical or stupid!

I can only address what Ron has expressed in public.

1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. He doesn’t want our troops involved in over 100 nations around the planet.
3. He doesn’t want us to pay out foreign aid.

1. So Ron states that we should have a military strong enough to defend us, but gets upset when we use our military after an attack that took down the World Trade Center Twin Towers, one other building, and made another so unsound that we had to destroy it too. This attack accounted for an approximate 30% evaporation of Wall Street liquidity, the exact number of trillions I’m not sure. I believe the total property damage probably exceeded several trillion dollars too. If this trigger wasn’t sound enough, what trigger would it take for Ron to sign on to our using the military to make sure it didn’t happen again?

2. We have troops in many nations. When I first learned of it, I didn’t like it. Then I thought about what would happen if we pulled those troops out. We have those troops there to keep contact with these governments, and to help the citizens of those nations. If we don’t send our troops to do this, will another nation do it? Should we be prepared to allow China to follow in behind us and develop contacts in those nations in our absence?

3. We pay out a considerable amount of foreign policy aid. I’m not real thrilled about it. I am not convinced that ending it really pays off to the degree folks think. Some of that aid helps buy favorable policy decisions on behalf of us and our allies. If we didn’t pay it, in theory we could could find ourselves having to introduce troops to quell a hot spot. In short order that runs up tremendous costs. Military operations can also contribute to a negative impression of the U. S. too. Is foreign aid a constitutional premise? I don’t think so. If it is considered to be an off-shoot of our military expenditures, it might be seen differently. Is it better to pay out a billion or two here or there, or is it better to put 10,000 troops on the ground for six months? IMO, it is debatable.

... As I understand it, Paul's position is that of the Constitution...No foreign entanglements but a large and tough enough military to defend ourselves against any and all at any given time...

You are correct.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
U.S. President Ronald Reagan

" ... We pump $40 billion a year into the Japanese economy by providing for essentially all of Japan’s defense. At the same time, Japan out competes us in the market, in effect subsidizing their exports, which then undermines our own domestic steel and auto industries. ..."

"Loyally standing by our ally Israel is in conflict with satisfying the Arab interests that are always represented by big business in each administration. We arm Jordan and Egypt, rescue the PLO (on two occasions), and guarantee that the American taxpayer will be funding both sides of any conflict in the Middle East. ..."

"Our official policy is currently is to be tough on communism, but at the same time promote lower-interests, allowing Red China to buy nuclear technology, F-16s and other military technology – all this by the strongest anti-Communist administration that we’ve had in decades ..."

"We subsidize Red China’s nuclear technology; at the same time, we allow Jane Fonda to ruin ours. ..."

"We continuously sacrifice ourselves to the world by assuming the role of world policeman, which precipitates international rises on a regular basis, all the while neglecting our own defenses. New planes go overseas while our Air National Guard is forced to use planes 20 years old ..."

Ron Paul, Congressional Record, 9/19/84