Question from Europe: What will Ron Paul’s mark be on the world’s scene? Or will he stay at home

I live in Europe, and I have been watching Ron Paul with a lot of interest. Unlike most people, I am not focusing on the glaringly obvious (which is: personal liberty and freedom of choice is a very precious thing, never to be taken for granted) but my interest is in how others view the current developments. How will Ron Paul affect the balance of power around the world?

Throughout the cold war, Europe was a vulnerable piggy in the middle while America stood up against Russia, with America shielding Europe under a nuclear umbrella. No harm could come to us while a strong and confident America remained in the saddle, nor could a united Europe rise to a position of power like it did so many times throughout its bloody history. America was the big power who kept everything in check, resulting in the longest period of peace the continent has ever known. That’s what policemen do: they can keep the peace.

But this once confident and strong American policeman has become corrupt and aggressive. America does not provide stability in the world any more, and has become unstable itself, with major economic woes and unprecedented racial tensions. The nation’s health is at an all-time low with diabetes, heart disease and cancer rates exploding. Add to these mental health issues, nationwide breakdown of family units and crime, and the outsider finds that America is not the shining example it once was, but has become a disruptive force on the world’s scene rather than a stabilising factor.

Ron Paul seems determined to turn the tide and give America its strength and pride back by going back to basics and teach Americans what government should be about in his view. He wants to withdraw American troops from trouble spots in the world where he feels the Americans have no business interfering in.

I would like to know your opinion. Will the world become more or less stable if Ron Paul wins the elections? Will the cauldron of the Middle East turn from a boiling point to just a containable simmer if Ron Paul removes the American oil from the ever present fire of religious hatred? Will Europe throw off the last of its Anglo-Saxon restraints and morph into a different power bloc than the infighting, crumbling and teetering collusion we have seen in recent history?

Apart from moving the troops home, in what way will Ron Paul influence the way nations do business? So many global disasters are facing us all, from health issues to economic woes and religious persecutions the world over, demanding a global solution. What will Ron Paul’s mark be on the world’s scene, or will he just stay at home and tidy up America’s internal messes? Will he tell the world: “you’re on your own now, America doesn’t have time for you anymore”…

Opinions please! What are your thoughts on the way Ron Paul will place his mark in the world if he becomes president?

To help you along, I found a thread on Ron Paul’s foreign policy here, but it focuses on why his policies would be good for America. Plus, the thread never really came into its own – it’s a rather short one unfortunately.

And another thread dips into the subject again from an inward looking point of view: here. Again a short thread, with a few distractions about his chances versus Obama. But some excellent sources.

Finally, a thread with an excellent video here

But I, as a European, would like to know: what will Ron Paul’s influence be on the world?

I fear that with the current situation in Europe culminating in a collapse of the Euro, England will stand alone in Europe and the rest of the European countries will squabble amongst the remains for themselves. Russia and China will see this as an opportunity to expand, and do so, and with America taking a more backseat in the world policing there will be less involvement from America.

And why not, I ask? The Chinese external economy will collapse and they will face social tension at home, either heading in the direction of a utopian "50s-style" golden era (if they preserve a middle class) and becoming self-sufficient, or plunging into internal sociopolitical chaos.

Russia? Well, they have their share of problems already.

I don't see any legitimate major threats to the world of the class of the Roman or British or German empires, frankly, except for America. And a Ron Paul victory would see that come to an end very, very quickly.

Let's hope for it.

You have already seen how Ron Paul has affected the world. He will come in second or third in the rest of the states during the primary elections and won't be president.
The only reason you even have heard of him is ats has a sizeable population of Paul supporters which isn't representative to the amount of support he ACTUALLY has amongst registered voters compared to other candidates.

The Republican Establishment is in a severe panic over the rise of Ron Paul. It is why you see the artificially created "rises" of people like Bachman and Santorum. We'll see what happens now that they are just about out of "anti-Romneys".
Also, the liberal media largely ignored RP until recently. Now, its a full on smear campaign. Amazing how they brushed him off as a kooky guy with lots of integrity and honesty. But now he's suddenly dangerous and lies about things...hmmm. Sounds like establishment folks are more concerned than some on this thread would like to believe.

To answer the OP's question: RP would not be an isolationist. He would work to reverse the last 50+ years of exacting tribute via debt and corporate domination of 3rd world nations. He would stop paying American taxpayer tribute to the banking system and would stop destroying American currency. He would promote self reliance, at home and abroad (Of course, by example rather than through forced compliance).
Through American leadership (by example and via co-operation rather than corporate and military force) The U.S. could maintain its influence on the world. Some of the positive aspects would stick around. The negatives would disappear.
The downside for Europe? You guys maintain your own security.

in the short term, there is bound to be instability. And there are always unintended consequences of any action, positive or negative.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

Through American leadership (by example and via co-operation rather than corporate and military force) The U.S. could maintain its influence on the world. Some of the positive aspects would stick around. The negatives would disappear.

Do you think that peaceful cooperation has worked in the past? Would it have worked in the Bay of Pigs incident? Would it have kept the Russians at bay? Isn't that what Obama is doing with Iran? Perhaps you could give an example where it HAS worked on the international stage.

You see, I used to be a teacher. And I was bullied as a child, and have come across one or two incidents in my adult life where intimidation and bullying tactics were used by some people. Today we have a number of 'bullying' nations, driven by religious fervour and/or energy strategies and/or hegemonic pursuits. My experience is that peaceful cooperation doesn't work with bullies who have a tendency to be disruptive way beyond their initial area of interest. But a firm stance does.

Or perhaps the phrase cooperation needs a bit more defining: do you mean diplomacy? Because talented and skilful diplomacy can achieve things in seemingly impossible situations. And sometimes a military stance is the only thing that will work. It takes a wise man to decide which tools to use, but he needs them all in his tool kit.

Will Ron Paul have a well kitted out tool kit for being firm on the world's stage?

I thought about this.. I can't come up with anything, we'd have to wait and see.