posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by schuyler
Well, I can respect that he's got his opinion, but unfortunately he's not understanding Ron Paul's foreign policy clearly and is apparently
unaware of our actual level of involvement and tinkering with other nations in the past (and that the CIA confirms this leads to foreign resentment
Paul doesn't say we should just give other nations the benefit of the doubt, but he does say:
1) We should stop antagonizing them for no good reason either via their inner political workings or by actual military engagement,
2) we shouldn't have our military spread all around the world while our borders aren't very secure,
3) we should cut the redundancy/bloat and streamline our military AND intelligence activity to prevent waste and jurisdictional confusion, which leads
to inefficiency and failure,
4) any actual threat we're made aware of - as we were of an imminent attack prior to 9/11 with plenty of other intelligence even down to some of the
specific hijackers themselves - should be reviewed in full with congress to determine and authorize proper handling, and
5) once a threat is confirmed or we have been attacked, deal with it swiftly with overwhelming force, be done with it, and come home.
Paul advocates "Just war" theory, not simple pacifism or reactionism. We've long since fallen from that standard, now advocating war based on
vague or tenuous claims that are not validated, sabre-rattling and propagandizing against people with no proven intent (and every reason not to) to
harm us, and instead of helping out when we claim 'humanitarian intervention', we leave things worse off than when we went in, usually with more
extremists in control when we leave.