Nevertheless, RP's foreign policy seems to be the biggest sticking point for most people. So, somebody please enlighten me: What's the big problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy?
Sunday, January 1, 2012
On Ron Paul
I like a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, but so many of his supporters seem so extremely passionate about him, just like Obama's supporters have been, and it's a bit scary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
He's Anti-Israel
He wouldn't stop Iran from getting Nuclear bombs. You can't be libertarian when dealing with psychos like the president of Iran. If he got nukes, he WILL use them. First on Israel, then on us.
Ron Paul can NOT be president.
He's not so much anti-Israel as he is anti-intervention. His foreign policy isn't ideal, but it's better than what we are doing now with aiding and abetting foreign fascists, governments, banks, and corporations through global institutions like the WMF, UN, IMF, CFR, NATO, World Bank, and Federal Reserve using the American tax payer as collateral and the soldiers as the enforcement mechanism.
I don't object to treaties and some aid where needed, but it's gotten out of control and our current foreign policy is creating as many enemies as friends.
George Washington warned against "entangling alliances" and we now have so many that we are in danger of losing our independence and sovereignty.
So, if not Ron Paul, then, who do you like? What do you think should be done about Iran?
So, the next question is: If it came down to Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama, who would you vote for? ;-)
If it were just about intervention he'd talk about Egypt or many of the other countries we're giving money to, but he singled out Israel. There's more there than it seems, I think.
I still like Romney, even though I admit he's not as conservative as others. We will not survive another term of Obama and Romney polls the best against him. He will do a lot of good and it will give us more time to hopefully change the culture enough to where a more conservative candidate is more palatable to the general public.
As far as Iran, hard to say what the right thing is. For starters, let Israel defend itself and support their decision. If Iran comes at us, we should do everything we can to stop them. Simplistic perhaps, but we can't be afraid to use force against evil. And it is evil.
If it came down to it, I suppose I would vote for Ron Paul but it would be a hard a painful choice because in my mind, Paul is only marginally better than Obama. Economically better, sure. But on everything else he's horrible.
PS. In the long string of briefly popular Non-Romneys, I've liked Santorum the best.
I can see your points, I agree with you on most of them. Santorum is electable, but can't compete against Obama, and is not conservative enough for me. Romney is the much stronger candidate, but still not conservative enough for me.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, we haven't done a very good job. I think we're too interventionist and we manipulate other countries too much. For too long, our priority has been to buy our friends, and then we wonder why they hate us. Out priority should be on liberty. If we do give out money, it should only be to freedom-loving countries that have a republican constitution, with free elections and a minimum of socialism.
Additionally, our war record since 1945 has been dismal since we don't fully commit. If it comes down to war with Iran, we need to carpet bomb them with MOABs and wipe them off the face off the earth. This pussyfooting around and calling it war will not do. We need to make sure that the world knows that we will help generously in times of need, but if you cross us, you will die, or be blasted back to the stone age. Make them think twice before attempting anything else like 9/11.
I agree with what Ann Coulter says here:
Ron Paul is not electable as president for several reasons, including that he is only a congressman, is bad on illegal immigration, favors drug legalization and is off the charts on foreign policy.
(But it would serve the rest of the world right to have Paul running the show for a term or two. Then they'd find out what it's like to be entirely on their own, protecting their own sea and air lanes, digging themselves out of their own earthquakes, getting invaded and nuked by hostile powers, having their computers hacked by terrorists and buying oil from the new Islamic caliphate. After eight years of President Paul, it would be generations before we'd hear a peep of anti-American sentiment again.)"
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/01/04/iowa_shows_republicans_determined_to_beat_obama
/page/2
And, yes, at this point, we need anyone to the right of Obama. I'm almost ready to say that Hillary would be OK. Almost...
As painful as that would be...
But it's pretty bad when you start missing the Clinton administration.
But, I see your points about Paul: if implemented too quickly at this point in time, his foreign policy would turn the whole world against us.
But, as for his other positions: We're losing the the War on Drugs, so we either need to step it up, or give it up and legalize drugs. Government has become far too intrusive and controlling, so his libertarian stances on most other things appeals to me.
So, right now, I'm leaning toward Romney.
I think our society is too immoral to go pure libertarian at this point. It only works when the people are righteous and can govern themselves.
As much as I want Obama out of office, I can't help but think that it won't really stop the inevitable. If Romney wins, the violent Left might really start acting up and then we're looking at End Times prophecy.
I also can't help but wonder if this is the last election the USA as we know it will have.
Too pessimistic? Honestly, as I say that, I'm really not pessimistic. I'm very optimistic for the future and, now that I have some decent food storage saved up, I'm kind of anxious to see how this all plays out.
Oh yeah, and I loved that Ann Coulter article. :)
I can see that happening, too, and this might very well be our last free election. I seem to recall an article I read recently to that effect, but I can't find it right now.
Post a Comment