Foreign Policy Experts Agree with Ron Paul

ABC News: Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul's Controversial Foreign Policy

I find it funny that the headline calls his foreign policy "controversial" when its our current foreign policy that should be considered controversial, radical and extreme. But then again, 2+2 does equal 5, war is peace, ignorance is strength.

Having said that, this is a great article, and I'm elated to see Ronnie's views getting some credible backing..

Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.
His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.

“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.
A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.
“It’s not in America’s interest,” said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.
He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In my opinion, it's the type of article that would be good to spread around, for those of us who support Ron Paul. It's refreshing to have an intellectual and logical opinion from those who would know, as opposed to being inundated with the barrage of war-mongering rhetoric we get from the other candidates at the debates

reply to post by bacci0909


I am not American, but i do like Dr.Paul, somehow i think he will meet with an accident or similar if he is the real deal. I really hope he does not, as he talks common sense and does seem to be genuine, he is the best you guys n gals have over there i.m.o and i hope he makes it, but i doubt it.

They all seem to become complacent when they get into office.

For me, you can replace your title "Foreign policy expert" by "Captain obvious".

I don't want to be rude to anyone but support war = support ignorance. I think i knew at 8 that both oceans was the best defense from a war in America. You also have more chance to die from a lighting than a terrorist attack. How embarrassing is it when you look the money spend on counter terrorism?

BTW i'm not downplaying the message(OP) since ppl have very bad memory we need to repeat this over and over,

Ron Paul is the only logical option and its our duty to spread the word around the world, not only in America.

EVOL.

... and you know the only thing he's doing thats put him head and shoulders above the rest?


.. using common sense.

you can only be elected president in the united states by wanting the destruction of the earth, no healthcare, no tax on the wealthy and 45% tax on the poor.

reply to post by bacci0909


The OP is very encouraging.

I think it's always a positive sign when members of intelligentsia break the cycle of their QWERTY bond and publicly support practical foreign policy. And kudos to the Cato Institute researcher for recognizing Dr. Paul's leadership in such matters.

Originally posted by randomname
you can only be elected president in the united states by wanting the destruction of the earth, no healthcare, no tax on the wealthy and 45% tax on the poor.

Is that how Obama got elected? Hmmmm
But if Ron Paul does sneak in, it's because he wants freedom for human beings, government out of everyone's business- including healthcare, and major tax cuts for everyone (including the "wealthy" who pay 80+ % of taxes and the poor, but actually they pay no federal income taxes anyway.)

While I think it's great he's getting press for common sense ideas in a MSM forum, it's not exactly a major breakthrough for a libertarian think tank (Cato Institute) to support Dr. Paul. It's kind of a no-brainer.

Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence. He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

reply to post by bacci0909


I find these two sentences clearly explain the basic reason we do not need military bases over seas and how our government constantly uses our "national interest" to justify going to war or occupying another country.

Our military complex has a strangle hold on our economy and the people are being drained in the form of taxes to support it. I may not agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas, but I think his foreign policy is the key to start getting our countries economy going again.

Originally posted by WeRpeons

Our military complex has a strangle hold on our economy and the people are being drained in the form of taxes to support it. I may not agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas, but I think his foreign policy is the key to start getting our countries economy going again.

Absolutely.. when I first started supporting Ron, I didn't agree with all his views. Though, after hearing his arguments for a lot of his points, I've come to agree with most of what he says.. but that's not the point. The point is, we're in a dire situation, and he's literally the only one that is going to do anything at all about the only 3 things that matter at this point (in my opinion): the wars, the Fed, and our rapidly vanishing civil liberties. Considering how significant those issues are, I really believe we're at a point where nothing else should matter