He does make a rather cogent argument for a foreign policy of non-interventionism here.
This always struck me as a bogus argument in the first place. Any politician truly dedicated to ensuring that we don't have to "fight them over here" would demand that we protect our borders. Yet the same people giving us the above line were surprisingly unconcerned that enemies of the US could easily sneak across the border and wreak havoc on our own soil.
If we actually had intelligent immigration laws that were properly enforced and we actually acted like we have a second amendment, they wouldn’t come over here, because they’d be denied entry or shot if they somehow got in and tried something.
Ron Paul once again demonstrates 18th century logic in the 21st century.
His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.
If a stopped clock is right twice a day, does that mean you should live you life by it?
***If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.***
WHAT A KOOK!
I’d probably agree with him if there were no airplanes, ballistic missiles, submarines, ships and satellites.
Yeah, he sure is crazy./s
We tried fighting them over here, it ended badly on September 11, 2001.
Now we have given Iraq its start, I totally agree with Ron Paul on all points listed here. If we have alliances, then we should honor them, but our being the world police force or the personal security force for Europe and elsewhere only makes others weak while making us poor. It's certainly long past time to walk away from NATO.
There is not one word for Obama.
Not. One. Word.
I can only assume he supports the current policy -- whatever it is.
He mentions Honduras not at all and only mentions Mohammad Mosaddeq, Obama's favorite Iranian. You know him, the great parliamentarian who was "democratically elected" although that is a bit misleading:
According to Ervand Abrahamian: "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum — had been elected."Charming.
I could tear this idiotic anti-Semite's rant to pieces for the right price, but one piece of imbecilic nonsense: "We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations."
This geriatric crank doesn't actually look at the world. Trading IS interference. Starbucks is Imperialism. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do, your presence is interference. Look at Obama in Iran, he tried desperately not to interfere and they blamed it for him anyway.
BTW, what is Paul's opinion on Honduras? It'd be nice if his "philosophy" is to be adopted that he describe how it would be manifested with respect to situations that have occurred in the last half-century.
We were attacked mercilessly by foreigners who were in league with multiple nations. We took the war to them and have not been attacked in the same manner here since. Though they have tried, the fact that their entire leadership is hiding in holes in the ground and too busy fighting our forces in their own back yard has contributed to their inability to conduct major operations here.
Quite a few people thought like this prior to World War II...good thing they did not carry the day then. The attack that changfed their mind then, killed less Americans than 911.
So there would be missles in Cuba if Paul was president in the 60’s?
I would love to see the UN sent to Toronto and us out of that tin pot dictator loving association.
Besides interventionist, globalist, neo-con fascists, who can argue with these principles?
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions...
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world...
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law...
4. We do not engage in nation-building...
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations...
(Because our interventionist meddling has been so successful? What would the Middle East do without our tax dollars going to fund THEM and THEIR arch enemy, Israel?)
I would prefer to fight them over here rather than put up with what happens at the airport and everything associated with the Patriot Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, anything engaged in by the Dept. of Homeland Security, etc., etc.