Paul was not for the Iraq war. That’s all I know about his foreign policy. He’s a more isolationist type guy. I like that. We need more of that. We spend too much on our military and military operations. Treaties bind us to war in too many places. We can no longer afford our social programs and military commitments. We face financial RUIN. I think the people that act as if we are still fighting the cold war are whistling past an economic graveyard.
Dr Paul's claims he would favor “going back to a traditional isolationist US Foreign policy”. That notion demonstrates Dr Paul is completely ignorant of even the most basic grasp of US History.
It is Dr Paul's simple minded inability to deal in facts instead of pat political dogmas, that renders him a fringe irrelevance on the modern US political scene.
Paul likes to claim the “foundering fathers were isolationists”.
No they were not.
The founders fought an Undeclared Naval war on Revolutionary France and launched putative expeditions against the Barbary Pirates. They engaged with Napoleon to buy Louisiana and drove the Spanish out of most of Florida. They fought another war with the Brits from 1812-1815 that had NOTHING to do with “national defense”
During the supposed “Isolationist” era between WW1 and 2 the US military waged any number of punitive wars in Central American, and Caribbean nations. The US also maintained a strong military presences in the Philippines and China.
Defending the National Interests of the USA has never involved doing nothing beyond cowering in bunkers on American borders as Dr Paul would have his worshipers believe.
“Paul was not for the Iraq war. That’s all I know about his foreign policy.”
And you dare to slam us for mentioning facts about his associations?
You admit here that you basically don’t know anything, and you keep repeating “No facts!” like a stinking parrot?