“Are Ron Paul’s foreign policy views really more odious than Romney’s consistent socialism?”
Paul’s foreign policy views are consistent with those of the founding fathers who warned us about meddling in the affairs of other nations unless our nation is directly threatened. Even then he respects the Constitutional requirement that the nation not go to war without a vote for war by Congress.
Taking an objective look at the post WWIi period, this country has experienced a succession of undeclared wars initiated by presidents. These wars have cost the nation dearly in terms of economic resources and human capital with little to show because these wars were not in the national interest and the nation was not threatened. If we had allowed South Korea and South Vietnam to fall to their enemies would we be any less safe today? We fought to save South Vietnam from communism at a cost of 50,000 lives yet today we send our factories to communist Vietnam costing thousands of jobs at home. Did Kosovo and Somalia make us safer? Did we do the right thing by allowing western Europe to get a free ride on defense for 50 years? Had they paid the cost of their defense after WWII our economy might be stronger today.
What have our recent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan done to make our country safer? More American citizens are killed at home by Mexicans and Central Americans in this country illegally than are killed by Iraqi’s or Afghan’s yet we are not using military force to stop the invasion of our southern border by millions of colonists. 9/11 was funded and perpetrated by Saudi’s yet we’ve done nothing to stop the funding of Islamic radicalism by the Saudi’s within our own borders. They are funding the mosques sprouting up around America and attacking our western culture.
In concept Paul is right. We are engaged around the world diplomatically and militarily In activities that do not promote our national interests and security. We fund these activities (as well as the welfare state and bloated bureaucracy) by debasing our currency and gutting our economy. Paul argues we should let the rest of the world deal with its own problems while we work to rebuild our own country.
Fixing a bankrupt America is going to require tough choices and massive spending cuts. Returning to a less costly isolationist foreign policy is one option that would save the treasury trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. Pull out of the UN. Bring our troops home from overseas while maintaining a strong navy, a missile defense system, and strong nuclear deterrent. Close our foreign bases and at least 50% of our diplomatic outposts. Stay out of foreign wars and stop diplomatically interfering in conflicts around the globe. Let Uganda, Serbia, Libya, Korea, and other nations work out their own problems. After all if we stopped worrying about a nuclear Iran we might find that China, Russia, India, and Western Europe suddenly start getting seriously involved with the Iranian situation. They are much more threatened due to geographic proximity than we are. Let them counter this threat in their backyard.
I agree with you. I find the perpetuation and expansion of the socialist state a greater threat to my personal liberty than what is going on half way around the world. If we are slaves to a totalitarian socialist state does it matter if the Iraq’s have a democratic government or if the Germans are safe from Russian tanks? Both Romney and Obama will perpetuate and grow the government as well as enable the culture warriors intent on destroying traditional values. Given the alternative Romney, Paul seems a much better choice.
Good post. Thanks. Only common sense I’ve heard in a long time. And I’m no Paulbot.