Replies

"This misunderstanding by Ron Paul is the main reason I cannot support him."

It seems you have misunderstood Ron Paul's position, which was perfectly expressed by Ronald Reagan, above.

Our current foreign policy weakens our military, and saps our treasury and our resolve by spreading our military thinly all over the world.

Ron Paul's position is to rebuild our military strength and use it only for national defense.

Our current foreign policy weakens our military, and saps our treasury and our resolve by spreading our military thinly all over the world.

If that were the whole of Paul's argument, it would be reasonable and even supportable, depending on the details. After all, with the Cold War now over for two decades, it's probably time for the Germans to defend themselves from the Russkies.

However, when the real core of his argument is moral equivalence blather one step removed from Ward Churchill (and the raw stupidity of believing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be deterred by MAD like he's a member of the Soviet Politburo sipping vodka in his daccha) there is no reason, no argument, only Medea Benjamin in a suit.

Recently, I heard a Ron Paul supporter calling in to WLS to express his absolute certainty that Iran would never nuke Israel because it "isn't logical." It caused my frontal lobe actual pain to realize that this sad sack thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a logical being, but what was really sad was his complete understanding of Islamofascism in the first place. I longed to ask this twit what is logical about an architect in ihis early thirties throwing his life--and the lives of innocent women and children--away to kill a bunch of stockbrokers.

When Paulestinians say Paul is like Reagan on foreign policy, it reminds me of the Reagan administration officials who pop up on NPR to tell us how Reagan would have loved this or that aspect of Obama's economic policies. Yeah, sure, and he was from Krypton, too.

It seems you have misunderstood Ron Paul's position, which was perfectly expressed by Ronald Reagan, above.

Our current foreign policy weakens our military, and saps our treasury and our resolve by spreading our military thinly all over the world.

Ron Paul's position is to rebuild our military strength and use it only for national defense.

Thanks.

"...I have trouble believing the foreign policy of the past 70 years has served the best interests of the United States....

W e 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. ...

September 19, 1984
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON FOUR TERMS IN CONGRESS
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES