What's any disagreement that's morally and sensibly possible with his views? Any nation that directly quarters troops in half of the world's nations is definably the enemy of all sovereignty. This pervasive military presence throughout the world can only be the best indicator that we've lost the Republic, and instead cower under the aegis of an Empire. Empires are evil, by definition, and so are we.
The American taxpayer and citizen should no longer be forced to pay for and supply bodies for all this deployment in half the world's nations. Gen. Butler warned us against this in the 1930s, yet we just kept right on going in order to build the world's wealthiest Empire. That wealth was built on murder and theft. So, I'm voting for Ron Paul, for a President who refuses to build the American Empire upon the foundation stones of the rest of the world. May he tear all that down, to return American power to where it belongs: the borders of the USA.
He does challenge us on our interventionist views . We are involved in so many countries . What are we still doing in Korea ? Surely South Korea can put their own soldiers on the border by now after 50 years ! That is only one example .
I like what we are doing in Iraq if we can stick it out , but let's
not be everywhere .
I hope Mr Paul gets the nomination
...disagree with several of his foreign policy positions, but I cannot fault his logic in arriving at his positions.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who first looks to the Constitution before deciding an issue. As Barry Goldwater once said "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible." And I believe Ron Paul does this.
Good men and women can disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, but using that document as the basis for your policy positions is, imho, the best source upon which to rely.
"Good men and women can disagree on the interpretation of the
Constitution, but using that document as the basis for your policy
positions is, imho, the best source upon which to rely."
And the interpretation of the constitution in todays world would be second place to what a leader feels is necessary and correct?
What about treaties and pre-exsisting obligations?
His claims are strong and wide but doable and possible?
With so much of corporate America entrenched with governmental contracts in lands around the globe, one person is going to step to the podium and effect change on a grand scale?
Less intervening and interference in other countries internal affairs is a great start but can it be done.
Lobbyists from foreign countries have lots of cash and influence to help people see things their way.
He's the only candidate from either party who advocates a non-interventionist policy in world affairs and who wants to bring the war powers back to the Congress where it belongs.
"It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image."