Since you don't want to read his policy for yourself, you can trust me. I have read "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" by Ron Paul.
It is a collection of his speeches in the U.S. House of Representatives on a variety of topics over a span of several years.
Not so repugnant now, is it?
—In my view of things, there’s Obama and Paul...with their diplomacy view. One can question the efficiency or lack of effort done by at least one of them.
—Then there’s Reagan’s view of diplomacy, embedded intelligence (both propaganda, spying, overthrowing), and limited prudent engagement. Reagan was willing to compromise, but he spoke the truth about our enemies....Paul seems to think the current ones are harmless.
—Then there’s people like McCain, whom think war is the best option and are far too often like Patton....even though I tend to like Patton.
I lean to Reagan’s view and look at McCain and Paul as oddities in the party. It’s not as though they’re without merit on both sides, but they are too much themselves...
And I have listened to dozens of Paul’s speeches 80% of the time on foreign policy he sounds okay, but 20% of the time he says something absolutely horrendous and deal-breaking (making his whole speech null and void). Much like Perry saying ‘heartless’. I don’t think Paul is Reagan...only Reagan is Reagan.
That being said, I disagree with many on this board and I often think there’s a borderline fanaticism with the whole Muslim religion issue. Almost to the degree that I think genocide is acceptable to some...I will not support anyone like that. I’m Christian at heart and while I realize my thoughts of violence are of sin, I hope that peace can be acquired among the religions (at least to some extent)...and I shun such drastic broad views of any people or background.
I think the best policy is to make sure democracy or those who support democracy is crazy regimes...are properly supported and defended. Even though democracy surely has it’s flaws, it provides a blanket of tolerance and liberty.