[Jonty30]

I read the article.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. Isolationism means leaving other countries to their fate.

As far as Paul is concerned, if Israel cannot stand up to 2 billions Muslims and survive, that’s Israel’s problem.

That’s been his long standing position, regardless how he tries to put lipstick on it.

[incindiary]

He is not an isolationist. He wants to trade with other nations, be friends with them, and respect their sovereignty - not build "walls" so to speak. Some would argue that what actually is "isolationist" is to have a foreign policy that is aggressive, and controlling or manipulative... because ultimately, that creates enemies or negative feelings toward the US, is that what we want?

As far as what you said about Israel - I disagree, because if we give 5 times as much to Israel's enemies, then cutting aid to both sides ends being a net advantage for Israel.

Let me ask you this... How would you feel if another nation, of even a global organization like the U.N ignored our independence and desire for sovereignty, and did things to get control over us, disrespecting our constitution or the will of the people? Would you like that?

[cgbg]

You are correct—Paul is an isolationist, and that does leave other countries to their fate.

The question is, when we have to borrow every penny that we spend abroad, when we have military bases in over one hundred countries around the world, and when we have enough weaponry to destroy any nation around the globe or kill any individual anywhere anytime—when is enough, enough.

I have been a military hawk for a long time, but I am beginning to change my view. At this point, as Eisenhower feared, the military industrial complex has indeed gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in.

Israel can take care of itself.

The more interesting question is—can we?