If shielding a kid from the law is not a perfect analogy, then just make it shielding a friend from a community where there are no formal laws.
I don't know Ron Paul, but everyone else I know who says that our interventionist foreign policy is partially to blame for 9/11 is pointing to Israel, although they generally avoid naming specific solutions and use phases like "world police". I think that the majority who share that opinion would like to see us do a tactical withdrawal from Israel first, followed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Diego Garcia, Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, Okinawa, The Baltics, Puerto Rico, Panama, Cuba, Guam etc…
And all they have to support this ideal is the unproven hypothesis that other less benevolent powers will not move into the vacuum that we leave behind, and we won't be faced with an invigorated al-Queda like force controlling the strategic assets of the world that our military had protected. Despite a history of evil growing where wealth is left unprotected and where good men do nothing to protect their allies, they expect the landlords of western civilization to risk all the good that we've promoted and wealth created throughout the world and withdrawal to the homeland to be protected by only a denial of the power of evil and a European style military.
So you say that the LP, CP (and don't forget the GP) are in favor of this? But not the DP and RP (who are dominated by those with assets to lose)? Other than a lack of enlightenment, why could that be?
Without our protection, I don't think it takes great imagination to see states in our own hemisphere fall to revolutionary forces similar to al Queda, African Nationalists or the old Soviet Communists. Not to mention growing sympathies for them in our mosques, ghettos and universities. I don't think that's easier or more honorable to defend against that than maintaining our strength around the world and defending those that either share our values of freedom or have something so strategically valuable to us that we'll pay them off for access.
I generally have some respect for those who see it differently, and want to explore integrated alternatives to our strategic position. But I have little respect for those that promote such a change during war, especially after the Vietnam example where we won every battle except the one at home. People found that careers were easily made out of leveraging dissent in the anguish of war, but at the expense of the people of SE Asia, the US and our soldiers.
Plus its not military support for self defense of a country that is the main issue. It's US offensives. Ex: Yoguslavia.
Btw when will this 'war on terror' end in your opinion that someone could suggest a change.
So you say that the LP, CP (and don't forget the GP) are in favor of this? But not the DP and RP (who are dominated by those with assets to lose)? Other than a lack of enlightenment, why could that be?
The RP and DP above all desire power. The LP and CP don't. The RP for years believed this as well until more modern times.
Also the LP and CP do not rule out giving weaponry, information or even letting American volunteers help defend allied countries. What we don't want is the US military all over the globe. And by all over the glove I mean that literally as it is now. If we just said we'll defend Israel, Taiwan and S. Korea I don't think we'd be having this discussion.